Genetically Modified Maize: Chardon LL

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as an organic farmer.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government for what purpose a genetically modified variety of fodder maize, named Chardon LL, was produced; whether it has been authorised for public sale; and what tests for all aspects of safety have so far been carried out, both in this country and elsewhere.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, Chardon LL is a maize variety which has been modified to be herbicide resistant. It has all the necessary food and environmental safety approvals under European GM and novel foods legislation. However, it has not been authorised for general cultivation in the United Kingdom because it is not on our national list. Regardless of the outcome of the current listing application, agreement has been reached to ensure that there will be no commercialisation of GM varieties in the United Kingdom until the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops have been concluded. That will be in 2003 at the earliest.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is not the real purpose of this new variety simply to sell greater quantities of herbicide? Can the Minister say what investigation has been or will be carried out into the long-term use of these herbicides, given that they are total ones and given that they may be used in the same ground year after year?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is important that we know more about the herbicide regime that goes with a genetically modified crop and the potential effects on biodiversity over and above the safety issues regarding human health, the environment and animal feed, all of which have been looked at. That is why the maize in question is part of farm-scale evaluations which are looking at exactly those issues. However, I would say that herbicide tolerance is not necessarily a negative issue in terms of pesticide usage or biodiversity. If one looks, for example, at sugar beet, the potential of having one application of a herbicide to which the crop is tolerant rather than five to keep the crop clean throughout the growing year has benefits. People should be aware of those factors as well as the potential risks.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the labelling regime for genetically modified fodder is adequate? There is a concern that, inadvertently, some organic farmers may be compromising their position because GM fodder is not well enough labelled. Can she explain to the House what the regime is and how she will ensure that it is properly carried out in the future?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that at the moment the labelling regime for animal feed is not satisfactory. It is an occupied area of European legislation. We have been working actively within Europe in order to get proper labelling of, yes, GM materials within animal feed, but also animal feed overall. The labelling regime has not been satisfactory in the past. We have made progress in terms of labelling requirements for human food. We are now moving on and there is progress within Europe in terms of achieving a regime that enables people to make appropriate choices. This is the important point. People, whether they are farmers or end-user consumers, should have information on which to base their own choices.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, if the Government do not intend to commercialise any GM crop growing until after the farm-scale evaluations have been concluded in 2003, why is an appeal currently taking place about the T25 maize in order to add it to the national seed list? I thought that the appeal was the final stage in a process which would then result, if the appeal was turned down, in the product being added to the list. Is a two-speed process going on here?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is a quite complicated process. National listing, which is currently being considered in regard to the T25 Chardon LL maize, is not an assessment of GM environmental or health safety. Nothing can be nationally list trialed unless it has a part B consent and nothing can be nationally listed unless it has a part C consent. National listing is essentially a consumer protection measure for farmers. On the basis of the trials that have taken place about whether the crop is distinct and has use for cultivation, Ministers recommended it for listing. At the moment a hearing is going on. That is not the end of the process because there is a potential for an appeal to a tribunal. But regardless of all that, there will be no commercialisation of the crop because of the agreement that has been reached with the companies, including the one which produces this maize.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister a little further along the lines of the trials. As she indicated in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, it will not be possible to plant this crop commercially until 2003. We on these Benches support those trials. Has the recent court case involving Lord Melchett caused any additional difficulties regarding the government trials of GM crops?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the case did not set any precedent. It was decided by a jury on the facts of that particular case. The farmers involved in the trials to whom I have spoken are still anxious to participate because they see exactly the potential benefits to which I alluded when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, they are concerned about the degree of intimidation and vandalism that go on when people are indulging in a perfectly legitimate and legal activity about which it is in all our interests to find the scientific evidence. We are certainly looking at ways in which we can give additional support and protection to those farmers.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the Minister's extremely balanced reply to the original Question as regards GM crops and the impact on herbicides. Will the Government continue to be guided by reason? Furthermore, on the question of safety, are the Government aware that, at the close of the OECD conference in February--which was attended by over 400 world experts along with a strong representation from the various environmental pressure groups--the chairman asked whether anyone present had any evidence whatever of any damage or danger to health from GM crops? That question was greeted with absolute silence. Will the Government resist any influence coming from newspapers more concerned with sensationalist headlines or from pressure groups more concerned with publicity and its effect on membership numbers than with looking at evidence, reason or common sense?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we would all vote for evidence, reason and common sense. I can certainly give a commitment that the Government will continue to base their policies in this area on science and, as the noble Lord suggested, to point out that the safety assessments for GM foods in particular are far more rigorous and demand a far higher level of detail than is the case for many of the foods which all of us consume every day.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government examine two particular risks related to the Chardon variety of maize fodder? The first concerns the transference of herbicide resistance via wild oats to other cereals. The second concerns the transference of the antibiotic factor via cows to milk for human consumption.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, those are exactly the kinds of issues that are of concern to the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment. It supervises the granting of release consents for any GM materials in this country before such products can be tested and put to trials. Furthermore, this particular product has been granted a marketing consent throughout Europe, which demonstrates that it has been subjected to a further level of trials. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that are rigorously assessed.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any independent research has been undertaken into the time taken for the relevant herbicides to degrade in the soil or on the plants? The noble Baroness will know from the letter that I wrote to her that it has been found that organophosphates do not degrade as quickly as was first thought. I have asked specifically about independent research because I know that the research relied upon for licensing purposes is that undertaken by the manufacturers--research undertaken in a laboratory at standard temperatures rather than in the field.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Countess as regards the specific research material that is available. However, one wrinkle that I did not point out earlier in my explanation of the approval process--I thought that the procedure was already very complicated to explain--is that these crops need to be given specific pesticide approvals. Those approvals are separately regulated and thus provide another barrier and method of assessing any effects on the environment.

National Lottery Commission

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have confidence in the decision-making processes of the National Lottery Commission.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decision-making processes of the National Lottery Commission are matters for the commission rather than for Ministers. Noble Lords will know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport last week appointed the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to the National Lottery Commission. The Secretary of State made it clear that we have every confidence that the noble Lord will be able to assist the current licensing process through to a proper and timely conclusion.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, while I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the remaining commissioners are now so discredited that they should resign? After all, a High Court judge has found them to have acted so unfairly as to amount to an abuse of power.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we need to be absolutely clear about what the High Court judge found. Apart from his comment that he had no doubt that the commission was trying to be fair, he stated that it had kept the principle of fairness carefully in mind throughout the ITA procedure, subject to one possible hiccup. He then went on to say that there was every reason to believe that, in deciding how to proceed thereafter, the commission still intended to act with scrupulous fairness.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a distinct possibility that, if the lottery commission remains in place, a court action is liable to ensue from the loser of the final contest? This may lead to a hiatus: the lottery may have to stop and then start up again, with all that that implies--losses incurred by good causes and retailers all around the country? Can the noble Lord tell the House whether that is not now a real possibility unless the entire lottery commission resigns?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no one can say that there is no possibility of any further court action. A great deal of money is involved, and the noble Viscount is quite right to say that one cannot rule out the possibility that a loser might go to the courts. However, I do not think that that follows from any criticism of individual lottery commissioners.

Lord Rix: My Lords, even though I am surrounded by the current and past chairmen of the lottery commission, I have the temerity to ask the Minister why the Government do not say farewell to the lottery commission, to Camelot and to the People's Lottery and appoint a government agency culled from the best management brains of the current operator and the putative operator? They could pay Civil Service salaries, which would be taken from the tax levied by the Government on the lottery, and pass over all the management charges--which are enormous--to good causes.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that he recognised, with hindsight, that perhaps the Government were not best qualified to run visitor attractions. I rather think that the same may apply to a lottery. Running a lottery requires a great deal of specialised knowledge which, historically and throughout the world, has been available only from firms and consortia of firms within the private sector.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, while lottery funding for big projects always catches the headlines, National Lottery help for small charities can be crucially important to their success. Can my noble friend assure them today that, notwithstanding recent wrangling, any changeover will be, as it were, seamless and on time?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are confident that we shall bring the current licensing process to a conclusion in time for there not to be a interregnum. Camelot has indicated that if there were to be a delay it would use its best endeavours to cover any intervening period. My noble friend is entirely right: some 71,000 projects have benefited from the almost £10 billion available from the National Lottery, many of which were the kind of small projects to which my noble friend refers.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I speak as a former chairman of a statutory commission. Does the Minister agree that every statutory commission is conscious of the dangers of a judicial review? Does he further agree that no statutory commission reaches a decision without the full support of its whole membership? In my experience, the chairman of a statutory commission never makes a decision on his or her own. In view of that, should we draw a pleasant gloss over this situation and say that there has been unfairness? If I and my colleagues had been faced with a judgment such as this while I was chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, we would have resigned. Does the Minister feel that it is an indictment of statutory commissions that they should hang on like limpets on a rock?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said about his own responsibilities. Clearly under the law enacted by the previous government and by this Government, the responsibility of the members of the commission is not a matter for Ministers. I do not accuse any noble Lords--still less the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington--of bias on this matter, but it seems to me that much of the press comment has been very sexist. It has been based on the fact that three of the commissioners are women who are being accused of lacking business experience. That is not only untrue but sexist.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I think that the Minister has just flown a kite. His reply was not up to his usual standard. Will the new chairman be acting properly if he let it be known privately to members of the commission that he would like their resignations? Would he be entitled to do so?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will have seen the interview with the Secretary of State in an article in the Independent on Sunday yesterday, in which he made it clear that membership of the commission is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but that if the noble Lord, Lord Burns, felt inclined to make recommendations to him about the membership of the commission, he would be guided by the noble Lord.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister see a valid line to be drawn between the chairman of the commission and those members who have not followed her example and resigned?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know, my Lords. I do not know the way in which the commission reached its decision. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, gave testimony of the way in which one commission acted, but I have no knowledge of the internal decision-making processes of the National Lottery Commission.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, will my noble friend ask those responsible to look at the allegations that the lottery basically is a tax on the working class for the benefits and pleasures of the middle class?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have heard my noble friend's accusations on a number of occasions and I have tried to answer his question; but it is virtually an unknowable statistic. We know where the money for the National Lottery comes from; we know by social class who buys the tickets; but it is impossible to say where the money goes to in terms of social class.

Lord McNally: My Lords, do not some of the origins of the present mess lie in the fiction with which the Conservative government approached the lottery--namely, that it was different from gambling and therefore needed a different regulator and a different department looking after it? Can the Minister assure the House that, as he starts on his task, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will take advice from the Gaming Board and the Home Office, where there is expertise about selecting proper people to run gambling?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to stand between the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

Women Doctors

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any evidence that women doctors in the National Health Service are more or less productive than their male counterparts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no evidence that women doctors in the National Health Service are more or less productive than their male counterparts. There is no doubt about the crucial role that women play in the health service, and their contribution is widely recognised.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that the recent claim made by Philip Hammond, a Conservative spokesperson on health, that women doctors are less productive than their male counterparts during their careers in the NHS should be strongly refuted? I have received a number of irate telephone calls about this statement from colleagues, women doctors in the health service and from my own union, the medical practitioners section of MSF. Does my noble friend further agree that such statements are particularly unhelpful at a time when both the Government and the Royal College of Surgeons are attempting to attract more women doctors into the service?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer to the words of Mr Hammond. He was certainly less than sensitive in using the words,
	"you will get less work out of those females".
	Not much sign there of inclusivity and not much encouragement to women doctors in the health service.

Earl Howe: My Lords, before anyone misattributes an argument to a member of the Opposition--a perfectly daft argument as it has been expressed, I have to say--would it not be wise to check what is the actual argument? Is the Minister aware that the issue is not whether women consultants are less efficient than men--which is an absurd suggestion--but whether, for the purposes of workforce planning, due allowance should be made for the fact that far more women consultants than men work part-time? Have the Government taken account of that?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, nevertheless, Mr Hammond could have chosen his words more wisely. On the noble Earl's substantive point, yes, we do take account in our workforce planning processes of the increasing trend among doctors of both sexes to work part-time and to take career breaks.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister willing to set targets to increase the number of women surgeons, as proposed by Mr Barry Jackson, president of the Royal College of Surgeons? Does the Minister agree that flexible working patterns in the NHS would help male as well as female staff, their families and the service as a whole? Does he feel, as I do, that there are echoes of another century--perhaps not even the last one--in Mr Hammond's comments?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that flexible working has to be an important human resource policy for the National Health Service as a whole, whether for doctors or any other group of NHS staff. We have made it abundantly clear to every NHS employer that we expect it to deliver flexible working. My understanding is that in September this year the president of the Royal College of Surgeons set a target for increasing the number of women in the profession from 5 per cent to 10 per cent over the next five years and to 20 per cent over the next 10 years. We very much support that proposal. I also understand that the Royal College of Physicians is reviewing the data on women in medicine to ensure that women doctors have equal opportunities in all branches of medicine--an approach that we strongly support and encourage.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned flexible working. As the NHS is the largest employer in the country, will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on other forms of family-friendly employment policies, such as elder care, childcare and so on, so that neither women nor men with family responsibilities will be disadvantaged?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Government are carrying out a review on how working parents can be given more choices in balancing their responsibilities at home and at work. It includes such issues as maternity pay and leave, paternal leave, flexible working, skills re-entry and keeping in touch, and childcare. Nothing has been ruled out at this stage. In that context, we want the National Health Service to be a model employer. We want it to ensure appropriate support and career breaks for employees, enabling them to return to the health service and providing appropriate training and support when they are able to do so.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister address the situation of young women GPs with small children who find that the person on whom they rely for help is ill and therefore unable to attend, which means that they have to cancel surgery or take the children with them? Has the National Health Service given any thought to providing emergency help in such situations in order to free up doctors so that they can carry out their health service duties?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the example given by the noble Baroness is one with which women in many walks of life are familiar. Certainly, we need to ensure that the National Health Service is as flexible as possible. There are particular challenges when it comes to GP practices where there may be a small number of principals and where such an incident can cause problems. The development of personal medical services is providing much more flexibility in the way in which GPs are employed--for example, through the use of salaried GPs and other methods.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in these days of movement towards equality, taking time off for domestic responsibilities is likely to be more equally divided between men and women and that, therefore, the arguments about workforce planning mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are increasingly likely to apply not to the employment of women but to the employment of people?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more. There are undoubtedly the beginnings of an indication that male doctors, too, seek career breaks and that they sometimes seek to reduce their full-time commitment to a part-time one. Our workforce planning needs to take account of changes in terms of NHS employment and changes in society in order to make sure that the right number of people are trained. I am confident that the extra number of training places in our medical schools brought into being by this Government, and those that will be brought into being over the next few years, will take account of that and will enable us to increase the workforce.

Lord Richard: My Lords, sitting in this Chamber as one does, day in, day out, I am constantly amazed at the way in which problems have arisen on or after 1st May 1997! I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point. The noble Baroness opposite raised an issue about what happens to the children if one of the parents is away. No doubt when the Government came in they inherited a set of detailed proposals left by the party opposite on how to deal with this difficult human and industrial problem. Will my noble friend share with us the details that were left to him?

Lord Graham of Edmonton: He should be so lucky!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the party opposite does seem to be suffering from a severe illness. It is known as collective and selective amnesia.

Biarritz Summit

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a question of which I have given notice. I regret to have to do so because it shows a certain breakdown in the usual channels. However, it is on a matter that needs a wider airing in the Chamber; therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House.
	As is now widely known, a summit of the European Union took place this weekend in Biarritz. It is normal at this time in the afternoon on the first sitting day after such a summit for the Government Chief Whip to rise and announce a Statement. On this occasion the Government Chief Whip has stayed firmly in his seat.
	That is no surprise. Late on Friday afternoon, when we suggested that there would be a Statement today, the Government told us that there would not be. This morning we were told that the Government had had second thoughts: there would be a Statement to Parliament but it would be a written, not an oral, Statement. The Government have, therefore, accepted that Parliament should be informed about what happened in Biarritz. But what is not acceptable is that they have offered a Statement in a manner that allows for no debate and no response either from the Opposition or from the many Back-Benchers represented here this afternoon. There is no opportunity for a wider debate between now and the end of the Session because the Government's programme is so packed.
	On examining recent precedents I discovered that, following interim European Council meetings over the past 18 months, there was a Statement: in March 1999, in October 1999 and in March this year. On all those occasions the Government said that the events of the summit had been a resounding success for the United Kingdom. Are we to believe that on this occasion the summit has not been a triumphant success for the United Kingdom? Does that explain the lack of a Statement on this occasion; or is it because the other place is not currently sitting? If that is the reason, is it not a disgrace that the Government cannot be bothered to come and give an oral Statement to the House of Parliament that is sitting?
	The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has, since this House returned at the end of September, behaved in an exemplary fashion as regards Statements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made a Statement on the Dome; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, made a Statement on the fuel crisis; and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has kept us regularly informed on international events. But on this crucial matter of national interest the Government seem to be rather coy. This weekend vital matters were raised on QMV, on the charter of fundamental rights and no doubt on the Middle East.
	Will the noble Baroness tell us why no oral Statement has been offered this afternoon? Is this a change of policy; or is it another example of sidelining Parliament in general and this House in particular? Will she say whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss these matters before the Nice summit later this year?

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I intervene briefly on behalf of these Benches to say that we are very much in agreement with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Apart from the normal areas that the interim conference is expected to discuss, there was a great deal of discussion about the Middle East. It might have been unreasonable to request a further Statement today in view of the fact that we had one last week, but bearing in mind the role of the Foreign Secretary and the reports that were no doubt given at Biarritz of his experience in the matter, I should have thought that it would have been a courtesy to the House to have had a Statement. It might have been quite an effort on the part of the Government, but it was an effort that they should have made to give some report on the matter.
	I am especially concerned about a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards what would have happened if the House of Commons had been sitting. Had the other place been sitting, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Prime Minister would have chosen not to make a Statement. That Statement would then have been repeated in this Chamber. I very much hope that we are not second-class citizens in that respect and that we have not been denied a Statement today which would have been made if the other place were sitting.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these points. As both noble Lords said, the Government have been extremely "forthcoming", which is perhaps the right word, in the past three weeks about the number of Statements that have been made to your Lordships, even though the other place has not been sitting. I believe there have been four Statements and one reply to a Private Notice Question. Therefore, the issues about the status of this House, and the importance that the Government see in reporting to Parliament through this House, have been adequately dealt with.
	I turn to the point about the European Councils. As the House will be aware, it has been the practice for the heads of government to have these informal meetings as a precursor to the formal, full European Council meetings. But they do not usually result in either decisions being taken or in communiques being agreed or published. That was the nature of the meeting in Biarritz last week. In general, successive governments have not made oral Statements about such meetings; indeed, they are different from the European Council meetings. For example, following similar informal summits in Formentor in 1995, in Dublin in 1996, in Noordwijk in 1997 and in Poertshach in 1998, no oral Statement was made. Therefore, the Government do not consider it necessary to make an oral Statement today.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is slightly misinformed. It was always intended that we should report back to Parliament by means of a Written Answer, tabled in both Houses. Noble Lords will see from the back of the current version of the Minute that a Question to that end was tabled on Friday by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That Question will be answered by the Government in written form today. If substantive issues emerge from the Middle East summit taking place at the moment, I believe that it has been made clear that a Statement will be made on that outcome.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is a slightly wider issue here as regards some of us on these Benches? Noble Lords on the Cross Benches are now formally recognised as an element in this House, but we are unique in that we are not part of the usual channels and have no party machine. Therefore, it is important to noble Lords on these Benches--some of whom have mentioned this fact--that issues such as this should also provide us with an opportunity to participate in the discussions that others have available to them.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, but it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion. As he said, the Cross Benchers are not members of the usual channels and, therefore, that is a wider issue regarding the organisation of this House which he may want to raise in an appropriate and slightly different form.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the anxieties expressed so far are shared on this side of the House. These matters are very serious. The agenda at Biarritz included the charter of fundamental freedoms, among other things, and we should have an interim report on the proceedings. I do not know whether my noble friend has sufficient influence with her colleagues on the issue, but perhaps she could get them to understand that it is not just a question of minor matters; indeed, the future of this country and the effectiveness of this Parliament are also involved. When heads of government meet, we expect to have a Statement thereafter.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern about some of the issues that were discussed in Biarritz. However, with his very deep knowledge of European matters and the way in which the European Councils are organised, he will be aware that informal meetings such as the one held last weekend in Biarritz do not have conclusions or take formal decisions. Therefore, although his concerns are completely legitimate, I suspect that my noble friend's concerns are not necessarily appropriately applied to this particular meeting. As I said, this was not a meeting where the sort of far-reaching decisions about which he is rightly anxious were taken.

Lord Elton: My Lords, there appeared to be a major difference of opinion on the status of some of the proceedings of the Community between our Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries. That is a matter of concern to your Lordships and to the country. Can the noble Baroness promise the House an opportunity to debate the Written Answer when it has been published?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is tempting me to incur the wrath of my noble friend the Chief Whip and, indeed, the usual channels in previewing any business decisions about the future of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, if it would assist, I should be very happy for the noble Lord the Chief Whip to answer my question.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not a little more serious than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have us believe? Surely decisions were taken at Biarritz which cannot and will not conceivably be reversed at Nice. I have with me a copy of the final press conference of the presidency of the council of Biarritz--the so-called "informal council". I regret to say that it is written only in French. I shall not trouble your Lordships with my less than first-rate French, but it says in the clearest possible terms that the chiefs of state have unanimously agreed the project of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Indeed, the President of the Council, President Chirac of France, goes further and says that,
	"this is an ambitious political test, which consecrates principles that often go further than those that have already been enunciated elsewhere".
	My question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is this. Does she think that there is the slightest conceivable chance that any of this will be reversed at Nice, bearing in mind that the record of the European Union is a one-way ratchet in all of these matters; indeed, it always has been and always will be?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I could not possibly enter into the detail of that discussion, especially not in French because I suspect that my French would be less good than that of the noble Lord. However, I should point out again that this meeting was an informal council. The Government and their predecessors have taken most seriously the importance of reporting to Parliament on substantive decisions taken in the European Union, but it has not been the custom for Parliament to debate the outcomes of such informal councils. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, these substantive decisions are not taken at such informal councils. There are, therefore, no decisions to be reported; and, indeed, there was no communique to be discussed in this instance, except the informal notes to which the noble Lord has access.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer my question as to whether she thinks that the decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be reversed at Nice or whether it will stand as agreed in Biarritz?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry; I obviously did not make myself clear enough. The decision on the universal charter will be taken at Nice.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, however informal the noble Baroness believes the meeting at Biarritz to have been, there are, nevertheless, considerable differences of opinion about the status of the fundamental rights charter. Although decisions were not taken at Biarritz, commitments to signing at Nice were in fact made. Therefore, it is important for the people of this country to know the exact status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the degree to which our Prime Minister is right to say that it is merely declaratory and has no other impact on the way in which our judges will determine law in this country. We also need to know whether M Chirac, or some of the other heads of state, are right in what they say. I think that the least we in this country should be offered is democratic, parliamentary discussion before any decision is taken finally at Nice.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness suggests that it is my interpretation that this is an informal summit.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I did, indeed, say that, because that is the status of the preliminary meeting before the full Council takes place. As I said in my original reply to the Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that follows a procedure which has been long established over the past decade and a half; namely, that informal preliminary meetings take place which act as a precursor to the full European Council. The informal summit is not an invention of mine; that is the precise term which is used. The noble Baroness mentioned the Prime Minister's attitude. As the Prime Minister has made clear--I have heard my noble friend Lady Scotland repeat this on several occasions in your Lordships' House when the point has arisen--the text which was considered simply constitutes a declaration. The noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House may disagree with that but that does not detract from his view.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, having listened to everything that the noble Baroness has said, are we right to conclude that, left to herself, she would almost certainly have made a Statement today, albeit on this informal matter, and that therefore she has been under irresistible pressure from elsewhere to abrogate the rights of your Lordships' House?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, that is not the case.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Schedule 8 [Sites of special scientific interest]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 478:
	Page 96, line 30, at end insert--
	("(3A) Conditions relating to an assent under subsection (3) may require the authority, where reasonably practicable and not involving excessive costs, to restore any damage to the notified interest caused by the operation or where practicable, to provide alternative habitats on land not included in a site of special scientific interest.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is a moderate amendment which tries to close a loophole in Schedule 8 to the Bill. I believe that since the matter was discussed in the other place the Government have come to the conclusion that there is a loophole here as they have tabled a similar amendment, Amendment No. 481. I shall explain why I believe our amendment is superior.
	Our amendment seeks to encourage the restoration of damage which results from the lawful activity of statutory undertakers where it is not reasonably practicable to provide replacement habitats. I understand that in the other place the measure was resisted as it was considered that it might involve statutory undertakers in unreasonable expenditure. We have therefore included the words "reasonably practicable" in our amendment.
	However, should it not be reasonably practicable to restore damage to such sites, the Government's amendment makes no alternative suggestion. It is not at all clear from that amendment what would happen in such a case. However, our amendment includes the option of providing alternative habitats where it is not reasonably practicable to restore damage.
	In relation to equity, I refer to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on a previous occasion on her Amendment No. 477. As the Bill stands, we believe that there is a lesser duty on statutory bodies than on private landowners in this regard. We believe that our amendment would rectify that situation. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to the noble Baroness's comments on Amendment No. 478, perhaps I can start by speaking to government Amendments Nos. 479, 480 and 481. As the noble Baroness recognised, these also concern the restoration of SSSIs where a public body has carried out an operation in exercise of its functions and has complied with the requirements in the proposed new Section 28F of the 1981 Act to notify the agency and take account of its advice.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill includes a duty on public bodies, when carrying out any of their functions where this may affect an SSSI, to,
	"take reasonable steps ... to further the conservation and enhancement of the ... features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest".
	I hope that that answers one of the points raised by the noble Baroness.
	When planning to undertake specific operations which are likely to damage a site of special scientific interest (whether on the site, or on other land, but where the operation may have a damaging effect on the special features), the public body is required under new Section 28F to inform the conservation agency. The agency then has the opportunity to advise on whether the operation should be carried out. In this event it can impose conditions requiring the operation to be carried out in a way that causes the least damage to the features. It may also advise on post-operation restoration. Where the agency has not assented to the operations, the public body may still carry them out but must do so in such a way as to give rise to as little damage as is reasonably practicable.
	Government Amendments Nos. 479 to 481 make clear that where a public body undertakes operations to which the conservation agency has not indicated its assent and which are likely to cause damage to the SSSI, it is required to restore the special features that have suffered damage. It is an offence for the public body not to restore the site, so far as this is reasonably practicable. The test of practicability would be for the courts, but we would normally expect it to include some assessment of cost. A public body could not be expected to undertake restoration works which were excessively expensive. I believe that that deals with another point raised by the noble Baroness. All public bodies will be expected to seek to minimise the effect of their operations upon SSSIs from the perspective of the public interest both in the conservation of these special sites and in minimising costs to the public purse should damage occur.
	Amendment No. 478, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seeks to achieve a similar position but goes further in relation to a requirement for the provision of alternative habitats. We do not consider this justified. The Committee may know that under the habitats regulations relating to sites of international importance such as SPAs (special protection areas) and SACs (special areas of conservation), there is a requirement in certain circumstances for the Secretary of State to secure "compensatory measures". These would not always require the provision of alternative habitats. In any event, we believe it appropriate to maintain a distinction between international and European sites, which attract the highest levels of protection, and sites of national importance. I should nevertheless point out that in England and Wales, international sites will cover nearly 70 per cent by area of the SSSI series. I believe that the government amendments fully deliver the commitment we gave in another place. I therefore ask that Amendment No. 478 is not pressed.

Baroness Byford: On this occasion I support the government amendments, in particular Amendment No. 481 which mentions restoring a site to its "former condition"; namely, its condition at the time agreement was given to an operation being carried out rather than imposing an additional requirement to restore the site to another condition. The noble Baroness nods her head; I assume therefore that I have correctly understood the position.
	As regards Amendment No. 478, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am not sure whether this means that in future the new Section 28E authorities would only be given approval for their work if it were reasonably practicable and did not involve excessive costs. I am not sure whether the amendment adds to the existing regulations and whether it precludes some work that is currently undertaken being done in the future.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not believe that the amendment would preclude that. The main difference is this: if the costs of restoring the site are prohibitive but the work has to be done, an alternative habitat must be provided.
	Between now and Report stage, will the Minister consider whether it would be acceptable for the conservation bodies to require an alternative habitat to be provided for SSSIs not covered by international agreements?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have no reason to believe that any further consideration would produce the response that the noble Baroness seeks. I undertake to consider all the points raised during debate but do not hold out the hope that that can be interpreted as meaning that the Government will respond in any way. It is difficult. Offering to read and listen carefully to arguments has a special meaning in your Lordships' House which usually indicates that the Government are minded to respond positively. I do not think that I can say that.
	It is important for the Committee to note that under new Section 28M(3) it is an offence for an authority to fail reasonably to restore, and it may be fined up to £20,000.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply. I appreciate that fact. However, as drafted, the Bill may cause statutory bodies to increase the costs so that they are excessive. Then they have to do nothing; they do not even have to provide an alternative.
	I shall consider the point carefully before returning to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendments Nos. 479 to 481:
	Page 96, line 36, leave out ("requirement") and insert ("requirements").
	Page 96, line 49, leave out ("requirement is") and insert ("requirements are--
	(a)")
	Page 96, line 54, at end insert ("; and
	(b) that the authority restore the site to its former condition, so far as is reasonably practicable, if any such damage does occur.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 482:
	Page 96, line 54, at end insert--
	("( ) Where the Council concludes, on reasonable terms, that they cannot assent to the proposed operations (with or without conditions), they may require that the section 28E authority seek authorisation by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment relates to procedure. If a disagreement between the statutory undertakers and the nature conservation agencies about an operation on SSSIs fails to be resolved, as drafted there is no provision in the Bill for a procedure satisfactorily to resolve that disagreement. If the conservation agencies cannot assent to a proposed operation, the amendment would allow them to require the statutory undertaker to apply for planning permission. That would put in place the procedure needed satisfactorily to resolve the issue.
	The proposed operation would then be subject to normal planning procedures and the operation could be determined by the local planning authority. However, if the circumstances were truly exceptional--they may well be if we refer to SSSIs of particular value to the nation and internationally--the conservation agencies or other parties could request that the proposed operation be called in by the Secretary of State for his determination, and the normal public inquiry procedures would apply. I accept that that would be necessary only in extreme circumstances. However, given the rate at which SSSIs have been damaged, we must make some provision for extreme circumstances.
	Perhaps I may cite examples provided by the RSPB. In the Dorset heathlands a local authority leased land to a parish council which wants to convert the heathland into urban parkland. It has been unable to resolve the situation with English Nature. English Nature strongly objects, but there is nothing in the Bill as drafted which will empower the agency to make representations to present its objections. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: In the case cited by the noble Baroness, there would be an appeal to the Secretary of State. English Nature can apply for a Section 28 order on the SSSI. The Secretary of State will determine that, usually very speedily.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: Underlying the amendment is a principle which it is valuable to explore but this is not the right amendment for that debate. In many cases the relationship between English Nature and the Section 28 authorities is excellent. Much is achieved by collaboration and co-operation. In circumstances of downright disagreement, a system is needed to resolve it. I do not believe that the proposal would work. It implies that the planning system would deal with issues which currently are not subject to, and would not helpfully be dealt with by, planning considerations. However, there is a point here which the noble Baroness rightly raises.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would the system suggested by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale work?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I recognise that there is a point underlying the amendment which goes further than the amendment itself. The idea of requiring a public body or statutory undertaker to seek authorisation through an application for planning permission would not work or achieve the objectives. The modern system of land use planning has established principles. They were established in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and they are based on the idea of an operation constituting development and then being subject to the planning regime. The amendment would say that "non-development activities" might be treated as though they were development.
	The planning system is not structured to consider applications for non-development activities. How could a local planning authority consider such an application? It could not consider an operation that falls outside the definition of "development" and outside the scope of the planning system against, for example, development policies in local development plans and other material considerations. We do not propose in this part of the Bill to change the well-established definition of "development". Indeed, we would not do so in this Bill.
	I acknowledge that public bodies, including statutory undertakers, may benefit from consents granted under their own enabling legislation and other permitted development rights; that is, operations that constitute "development" but for which an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not required.
	These consents and the regime for permitted development rights ensure that statutory undertakers are equipped to carry out their functions--their statutory duties. In exceptional circumstances, a local planning authority may consider that planning control should apply to permitted development. In these circumstances--I believe that these are the exceptional circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred--it is open to the local planning authority to make and submit to the Secretary of State an order under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 seeking to remove the particular development right and requiring an application for planning permission. I am not sure whether that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about a reference to the Secretary of State.
	The Bill as drafted requires for the first time that the conservation agency is fully involved in the consideration and exercise of such consents. I stress the totally new provision of new Section 28F to which my noble friend Lady Farrington spoke in debate on the last group of amendments: the public body, in carrying out operations, must do so in such a way as to cause as little damage as reasonably practicable; and the public body must restore the land to its former condition so far as practicable. However, there must be a balance of interests. We have ensured that if such operations are imperative, the conservation agency retains a full opportunity to advise the public body on the operation and the best way to carry it out.
	We are firmly committed to sustainable development. That involves carefully weighing all the issues, particularly the benefits to the public. In some cases, the duty of a statutory undertaker may need to override the nature conservation interest. The procedures allow for that. We have never sought to imply that SSSIs must be inviolable. Of course there will be difficult decisions, but we are talking about exceptional circumstances only. I expect statutory undertakers to work constructively with the agencies to ensure that their work is carried out without compromising the nature conservation interest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just made clear, the conservation agencies have good working relationships with public bodies and constantly seek to develop them further. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will not press the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, helpfully pointed out that the underlying principle of the amendment was important and was not currently met in the Bill but that this was not the right vehicle to implement it. I accept that and shall go away and look at the issue further. Perhaps my local authority background is coming out too strongly. I should like to discuss the issue further with the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 483 to 483B not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 483C:
	Page 97, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Lord Glentoran: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 484 to 487. Management schemes are the only way to control operations on SSSIs. Given that management agreements are already part of the process, schemes of management would be helpful, even if they may not be over-popular.
	Amendment No. 484 would remove the words "if they think fit" in the reference to actions by the council. It is not clear why the power granted to English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to make a management scheme is to be exercised only "if they think fit". That is an unusual drafting term. Usually, a statutory body is given either a duty, in which case the Bill would use the word "shall", or a power, in which case the Bill would use the word "may". It is not clear what the phrase adds to the understanding of the power granted. Presumably English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales would exercise any power granted to them only if they thought that it was appropriate. What body would exercise a power if it did not think that it was a good idea to do so? That would be daft.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what value is added by the inclusion of the phrase in new Section 28H(1). It also appears in new Section 28I(1)(b), new Section 28J(4) in relation to the Secretary of State and new Section 28K(2). The same arguments apply. A consistent approach should be adopted in reviewing its utility in each case. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind its inclusion. If his arguments are not persuasive, perhaps we can take it further on another occasion.
	Amendment No. 485 would ensure that owners were consulted while the management scheme was being formulated instead of after it had been formulated. New Section 28H(3) requires owners to be consulted about a proposed management scheme. However, it appears that that consultation would take place after the scheme had been formulated, not before or during its formulation. There is therefore a risk that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales would prepare a scheme without informing an owner that they were doing so and would then consult the owner on a scheme to which they had had no input.
	Three potential problems could then arise. The scheme could be incomplete because it failed to take account of current management practices, it could fail to take account of the economic realities of the land management business involved or, as an effective fait accompli, it could cause offence to owners, who might be concerned that their input was not wanted.
	Those problems could be avoided if English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales actively invited input from owners and occupiers to the preparation of a scheme. Such early involvement would help to build a better partnership with owners and would help English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales in preparing the scheme, because owners and occupiers would be able to give them a clear idea of issues such as how the land was managed, how that management might change and what practical difficulties had to be overcome if the land was to be managed differently.
	Spending time actively involving owners in formulating schemes should also work to the advantage of English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales once they come to give owners the opportunity to make formal representations about a scheme under new Section 28H(7). If owners' concerns have been taken into account as far as possible in formulating the scheme, it is unlikely that they will wish to make formal representations. If, on the other hand, as the Bill currently suggests, owners are simply presented with a fait accompli in which they have not been actively involved, they are likely to make detailed representations, which could delay the finalisation of the scheme, because English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales have to consider all such representations. I hope that the Minister will know from his experience that all good managements involve all those concerned when formulating plans and changes and will accept that the amendment is common sense. As those of us who have worked on the shopfloor and in the industrial world know, it makes it considerably easier if everybody is involved at the earliest possible stage.
	Amendment No. 486 would provide for English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to seek external advice when preparing management schemes. I have a short brief from the National Farmers Union on the amendment, which would enable English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to tap into external sources of land management expertise or experience in preparing management schemes. While English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will often have a clear idea of conservation objectives for SSSIs, they may lack experience of the particular farming systems that can deliver those objectives. That brings to mind a discussion that we had late one night last week. Even where they have such experience in general, such as from managing livestock on national nature reserves, they are unlikely to have experience relevant to the particular locality or farming regime of the owner or occupier.
	In contrast, owners and occupiers will often have a good idea of the management required. It is important that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales tap that expertise in consulting owners or occupiers about schemes under Section 28C(3). However, input from bodies such as the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency or the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group could be helpful in developing and refining schemes. In cases when English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales lack experience, they should be encouraged to take advice from regular experts. The NFU stresses that the confidence of owners and occupiers in management schemes is essential to their success. The process must be as transparent as possible. The amendment would help to minimise any risk of misunderstanding about why the nature conservation body was proposing the particular management scheme.
	As I have just outlined, Amendment No. 487 is also supported by the National Farmers Union. Again, this amendment gives the basic contents of a management scheme and relates to Section 28H(2). SSSI notifications, especially in relation to large sites, will often be vague about the particular interest and management of parts of the site under different owners or occupiers. On average, each SSSI involves eight different landholdings.
	The management scheme provides an important opportunity to tailor the details of the notification, and the management objectives which flow from it, to the individual land management unit. That process should involve specifying which of the particular features of the SSSI occur on the landholding, what management regime the council considers is needed to conserve those features, which of the operations contained in the general list is relevant to the site, and which of the operations pose no threat to the site and, accordingly, have been consented to by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales.
	The end product should be a scheme for managing the site which sets out clear, agreed objectives and seeks to keep the bureaucracy associated with the SSSI consent system to the absolute minimum, consistent with the conservation of the site. Such schemes should provide a sound basis for a positive working partnership between English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and SSSI owners and occupiers. That is what we on this side believe in. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may make two brief points. First, with regard to Amendment No. 485, it is my understanding that, prior to the serving of a management scheme, there will have been full discussions with all the parties concerned in pursuit of a voluntary scheme. It is probably not necessary to go through all that again. Certainly, all parties concerned will be well aware of what is being proposed.
	My second comment is in relation to Amendment No. 486. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, admitted, we have covered this ground. It is perfectly clear that the power which he seeks is already available to the councils. Therefore, I cannot see the need for the amendment.

Earl Peel: I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. So far as concerns Amendment No. 485, I am quite certain that she is right and that the proper consultation process will, indeed, go through. If that is not the case, then clearly it should be, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
	I believe that my noble friend's Amendment No. 484, which would remove the words "if they think fit", would cause considerable difficulties for English Nature. Having to go back through every single site of special scientific interest would place an enormous and onerous task on that body. Having had the pleasure of serving on the council of English Nature and knowing how long such things take, we could be talking about many years. Therefore, I suspect that the Minister will reject the amendment robustly and, on this particular occasion, I would agree with him. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head.
	My other point is that, if we are to remove the words "if they think fit", surely the whole of the SSSI would have to be brought into the management plan and not only, as the Bill stands at present, that part of it which is available to English Nature and CCW.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that his Amendment No. 486 may be too restrictive. The authority should be able to seek the advice of the people he mentioned. However, in some areas it should also be possible to contact for advice local organisations or individuals who are involved in conservation. As an example, I can think of a man in my own area who, until he died last year, knew more about botany in our county than anyone else. He was actually a dentist. He was not an expert in land management; nor was he involved in forestry or farming, although he knew a great deal about the subjects.
	However, if there is to be a right to seek advice from farmers, foresters and land managers, the same right should also exist to contact individuals who are knowledgeable about a particular area. It is important to obtain their advice as well, as it may be more valuable than that which is forthcoming from people with expertise in the areas mentioned in the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: I believe that we are getting into a bit of a muddle. After all, the ecology of an area depends entirely on the farming methods of that area. Therefore, if English Nature quite rightly wants to prevent a new activity taking place, this is the right way to go about it. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country--my own in the south west being one, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will be able to confirm--the staff of English Nature are not always as sensitive and as diplomatic as they might be. They give the impression to farmers that they are trying to turn back the clock and produce a different, older ecology than that for which they are enforcing SSSI status.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wish to make two brief comments about this group of amendments. The first may be of help to the Committee with regard to management schemes. I believe that we should be clear that under the Bill management schemes will be quite a long way down the road. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right to say that management is important to SSSIs. However, management schemes come into play only if there has been a failure to gain voluntary agreement. Indeed, voluntary agreement is by far the most common solution in relation to the management of SSSIs. Therefore, I hope that it will be seen that management schemes will be required only where there is a failure to agree.
	I also want to make a point regarding the management of SSSIs being due entirely to the farming regime. A large number of SSSIs are dependent on farming management but a large number are also dependent on a whole variety of land uses--not least development use, the activities of statutory undertakers of water companies, and a variety of different activities other than farming. Therefore, although farming is extremely important, I should not want to say that the responsibility for SSSIs lies entirely with farmers. It is true that, in terms of operations on SSSIs, at present agriculture is by far the most damaging practice.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I can perhaps see a reason for further consideration of Amendment No. 485 because, although management schemes are a fairly long way down the road, it is reasonable that the "Council shall consult" the owners before such schemes are drafted. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, whether it is the intention of Amendment No. 483C that English Nature should consult on every site, including those that are satisfactory.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to undermine the importance of management schemes, although, as my noble friend Lady Young said, they are a long way down the road. The vast majority of SSSIs are dealt with by voluntary agreements rather than by management schemes as provided for in the Bill. However, they make an important contribution to the new scheme for SSSIs. They increase the emphasis on securing positive management, which will ensure that the site is in favourable condition.
	However, it has generally been made clear in the debate that we cannot accept Amendment No. 483C, which would require management schemes in every case by inserting "shall" instead of "may". It may not always be necessary or desirable to have a management scheme on every site, whether the site is for farming practice or for the other uses to which my noble friend Lady Young referred. Indeed, a geological site which is simply a rock face may need no active management at all. Therefore, we have left the agency with the option to decide whether it considers it fit to impose a management scheme. To that extent, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
	However, I was prepared, and am prepared, to accept Amendment No. 484, although the noble Earl, Lord Peel thinks those words should be retained. I am advised that the words "if they think fit" merely add emphasis to the permissive nature of the word "may". On reflection, it does not seem to us that those words are necessary. It does not mean that that could be applied only to the whole of an SSSI. It could apply to a part of an SSSI.
	There is a slight complication in that the words "if they think fit" occur in two other places and they must be taken out on Report. But I am prepared to agree to Amendment No. 484.
	The fundamental point about Amendment No. 482 is that there may already be voluntary agreements and the scheme may be unnecessary. If a land manager considers that a formal management scheme would be helpful, he should approach the conservation agency with a view to opening discussions.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 485 which deals with consultation. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has correctly interpreted the Bill and that is confirmed by what my noble friend Lady Nicol said. The Bill already requires a full and open consultative process--that is in Section 28H(3). The relevant owners must be consulted about the scheme before the notice is served. That acknowledges the value of their expertise and ensures that they have the opportunity to influence the drafting of the scheme to reflect their views on the appropriate management of the land.
	But they will be given a further opportunity to make representations once the notice has been served, and that is in Section 28H(7). I do not see what Amendment No. 485 adds to that process. We have deliberately taken full account of land managers' views at all stages.
	As regards Amendment No. 486, it is already open to the agency, where it considers it needs to draw on sources of expertise which are not available among its staff or council members, to seek specialist advice from elsewhere, including the appropriate use of consultants. I say that in the widest possible sense. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there may well be local expertise which is not available to the agency, although it has expertise at national and local level. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy that there may be people of whom one would never think whose expertise may be valuable. However, I should not write dentists into the Bill to take account of that point.
	In any event, that power includes advice on land management and that is made clear in Section 132(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We shall encourage that practice wherever it is necessary and helpful. The agencies will ensure that staff dealing with SSSIs have the necessary training and access to guidance and good practice.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 487. I acknowledge that the list of information which is given in the amendment is useful. But much of it will already have been available separately to landowners or occupiers, some of it, although not all of it, in the notification procedure. To repeat it here would simply burden them with more paperwork and give rise to complaints.
	The management scheme is intended to be a clear, detailed and workable scheme for management of the land. It is put forward in the interests of building positive partnerships so that everybody is aware of how the nature conservation interests may best be conserved. It may include clarification of the operations which may damage some or all of the site, particularly where it addresses a single landholding within a larger SSSI and it may usefully cover consents for activities which the land manager may undertake.
	I believe sincerely that the provisions in the Bill go far enough to ensure that the land management scheme can be effective and not overburdensome.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister says that statutory management schemes are a long way down the road and that voluntary schemes will be the norm. He indicated that the statutory schemes will come into force only when it is not possible to reach agreement. I can understand that.
	But will the Minister tell the Committee what proportion of the acreage or hectarage of SSSIs the Government anticipate will be involved in statutory schemes? They must have thought about that because of the costs involved and so on. I should just like a picture of what will be the impact of the statutory schemes. Can he give the Committee any information in relation to that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The short answer is as little as possible in terms of acreage and as few as possible in terms of the number of sites. We need that provision because there are occasions when voluntary agreements cannot be reached. It will be a measure of success of that part of the Bill that there should be as few as possible. However, it is not wise for me to anticipate exactly how many there will be.

Lord Glentoran: I accept the explanations and comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the Minister on Amendment No. 483C. I am delighted that there is such a strong emphasis on voluntary agreements.
	I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 484. As regards Amendment No. 485, I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Bill to some extent. I shall read it again. In general, I accept the Minister's explanations in relation to Amendment No. 486. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 484:
	Page 97, line 33, leave out (", if they think fit,").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 485 to 487B not moved.]

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 488:
	Page 99, line 3, after ("agreement") insert ("under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act").

Lord Luke: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 489 and 490. New Section 28I(2) provides that a management notice cannot be served on an owner or occupier unless English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales is satisfied that it is unable to conclude, on reasonable terms, an agreement with the owner or occupier as to the management of the land in accordance with the management scheme.
	The nature of the agreement is not specified. It is implied that the agreement would be under Section 16 of the 1949 Act or Section 15 of the 1968 Act but that is not clear. This amendment would clarify the situation. The amendment would also make it clear that EN/CCW had to be satisfied that it could not conclude a formal agreement under those provisions. If EN/CCW attempted to reach an informal agreement and the owner was unwilling, EN/CCW might argue that it could then proceed to a management notice without attempting to secure a formal agreement. I maintain that that would be unfair on the owner or occupier who should expect to be involved not only in informal discussions prior to the serving of a management notice but also in serious, formal negotiations over a formal agreement that would meet both the owner's needs and those of EN/CCW.
	I deal now with Amendments No. 489 and 490. The Government have previously amended the Bill to remove references to management agreements on SSSIs being on terms reasonable to EN/CCW. The Government have accepted that such agreements should simply be on reasonable terms which can be assessed from the viewpoints of all parties, not simply on terms which appear to the council to be reasonable. That is a vast perspective which may devalue the perspective of the other party. We are grateful for that.
	But there is another example in the Bill of undue bias towards the view of EN/CCW over that of the other party, who is the owner or occupier. That arises in new Section 28I(4). That requires that the works of other matters specified in the management notice must appear to the council to be measures which it is reasonable to require, rather than simply measures which it is reasonable to require.
	That is a biased approach. The amendment, by deleting the words "appear to the council", would restore a fair balance between the perspectives of EN/CCW and those of the owner or occupier.
	Appeals against management notices under new Section 28J bring the implications of the current wording even more sharply into focus. As the Bill is worded, the issue in an appeal would simply be whether EN/CCW was reasonable to include the measures in the notice, and not whether the measures themselves were reasonable. Surely that would be far more difficult for an owner to contest effectively than the issue of whether it would be reasonable to require him to carry out the works on the SSSI land. The occupier would be faced with proving that EN/CCW staff had acted unreasonably and not that the works themselves were unreasonable.
	A fairer appeal system would surely require that persons other than EN/CCW should be able to test whether the requirements of the notice--the work specified--were reasonable. As the Bill is drafted, it would deny that opportunity to owners and occupiers or any inspector appointed to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the Bill should be amended as I have suggested.
	I turn to Amendment No. 490. New Section 28I provides that where a management notice has been served and the works required have not been carried out by a specified date, the council may enter the land and carry out the works itself. It also provides that the council may recover "any expenses reasonably incurred" in so doing from the owner or occupier on whom the notice was served.
	It would not be unreasonable for EN/CCW to seek to recover from the owner any sum that it had previously given to the owner to carry out the works under a management agreement. If it recovers that money, the council should use it to fund its own costs in carrying out the work. The only cost that the council should be able to seek to recover over that amount should be any additional cost over and above the sum that it incurs.
	Continually, the DETR has assured us that owners and occupiers would be required to pay only costs incurred over and above the sums offered under any management agreement. Amending the Bill as proposed would ensure that there was certainty on that point. I beg to move.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am slightly confused as to the intent of Amendment No. 490. I thought I understood it when I read it, but now that the noble Lord has spoken to it I am more confused. Perhaps I may describe the circumstances in which a management notice would be served and in which the costs of carrying out the works that had not been carried out by the owner and occupier would be sought from him.
	Under the Bill there would be notification, consultation and eventually confirmation with regard to SSSIs. There would then be considerable discussion about reaching a voluntary management agreement. In the absence of an agreement being reached voluntarily, a management scheme would be drawn up and consulted upon. Eventually, if the management scheme was not accepted and work that was required was not carried out, a management notice would be served, giving a clear indication of the work needing to be carried out. If the work was still not carried out, action would be taken to seek the costs of such work, as the Bill describes.
	One has to go a long way down the road before reaching that point. The number of owners and occupiers who would come into that category would be small. If such an owner or occupier did not agree with the management scheme, he could appeal. The circumstances described are of someone having gone through a number of stages, with consultation at each stage and with an eventual right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and still saying, "I am sorry; I will not do what the site now urgently requires and which has been agreed by a whole variety of bodies, including (potentially) the Secretary of State". We are talking about extreme circumstances. If I were not in your Lordships' House, I might use a word I sometimes use about a small number of people who come into that category!
	I believe that it would be slightly unreasonable if the amount that was reclaimed from such an owner or occupier were to be offset by the amount of a management payment that he would have received if he had agreed to the management agreement. I believe that accepting this amendment would encourage the small proportion of owners and occupiers--the few bad apples--who give a bad name to the majority of landowners who work well with the conservation bodies and who really care about the conservation of their land, to behave as badly as they like until they finally run out of road. I urge the Minister to reject the amendment.

Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lady Young has done half my job for me. It is clear that the procedures covered by this new section are end-of-the-line procedures. A management notice will be used in only exceptional circumstances. The agency will already have entered into discussions with the land manager about the appropriate management of the conservation interest; it will have discussed the content of a scheme; it will have served the management scheme with a further opportunity for the land manager to comment; and it must have offered to enter into a management agreement on reasonable terms. Only then may it serve a management notice if it has not been possible to reach such an agreement. Given that lengthy and clear process, which allows the opportunity for landowners and land managers to make representations throughout, let us now focus on what the appropriate formulation should be when such a situation arises.
	If Amendment No. 488 were agreed to, we would have to deal with a situation where the agency will have offered an agreement using its existing powers under Section 15 of the Countryside Act or Section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. They have no other powers in relation to agreements with owners and occupiers. In the majority of cases where work must be undertaken, the agreement will include the offer of a financial sum.
	In relation to Amendment No. 490, I can assure the noble Lord that where the agency has subsequently served a management notice which is not complied with and, exceptionally, uses its powers to enter land, carry out work, and recharge its costs to the land manager, the amount to be recovered should indeed exclude any amount which had been offered under the management agreement for the work to be carried out. That is a matter for guidance rather than for the Bill itself.
	Ministers are required to issue guidance on the terms of agreements and already we have issued for consultation a draft of Financial Guidelines on Management Agreements. A similar draft has been issued for Wales. Having taken account of the comments received, and having regard to matters raised in debates on this Bill, we shall issue final guidance once Part III of the Act comes into force. We have also issued a consultation paper on the terms of guidance to the agencies--Sites of Special Scientific Interest: encouraging positive partnerships--in which the issue addressed by Amendment No. 490 is covered in paragraph 51.
	On the matter of the "reasonableness" of a management notice, which is covered by Amendment No. 489, as my noble friend said, that may be tested by appeal to the Secretary of State. That appeal would not be on the rather narrow grounds identified by the noble Lord, but on the grounds that the agency could not reasonably have reached its decision, which involves both process and substance. That is a standard procedure and more or less a standard form of words in legislation; for example, comparable references appear in planning legislation and in relation to enforcement notices issued by a planning authority, which must state the matters that appear to that authority to be included, such as those in relation to listed buildings. Likewise, such a provision appears in environmental legislation, where action may be taken where the enforcing authority "is of the opinion". In each case the body taking action must decide what appears to it to be reasonable. That is the situation here. There are ample precedents for that approach. There is also an appropriate means to test that decision, should an appeal be made.
	Therefore, I hope that that is sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord that the rights of landowners and occupiers would be fully and appropriately protected in this almost last-resort procedure and covered by these provisions in the Bill, and that he will not press his amendment.

Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, though I do not believe that the amendment would have provoked any owners to do what she suggested. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 489 and 490 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 491:
	Page 99, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lands Tribunal").

Lord Glentoran: In moving Amendment No. 491, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 492. Amendment No. 491 concerns appeals against management notices and suggests that they be heard by the Lands Tribunal and not the Secretary of State. Before going into the detail of the amendment, I should say that I am well aware of the earlier debate in relation to the suitability of using the Lands Tribunal as an appeal court for this Bill. However, there are some pertinent arguments in this matter and the purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister to agree to reconsider the appellate system generally before Report stage.
	It is suggested that the Secretary of State is not well placed to hear appeals. In particular, the Secretary of State has a duty under new Section 28E,
	"to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of [his/her] functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which [a] site is of special scientific interest".
	Against that background, how can a Secretary of State properly adjudicate on an appeal against a management notice which will necessarily have been served with the aim of furthering the conservation and enhancement of an SSSI? If the Secretary of State upholds the appeal, he could be liable to judicial review for failing to honour his duty under new Section 28E. In practice, the Secretary of State is likely to avoid that possibility by rejecting appeals against notices as a matter of course. The right of appeal thus becomes totally meaningless.
	A more independent person is needed to hear appeals. The amendment proposes that that might be the Lands Tribunal, which has the advantage of not being appointed by the same Secretary of State responsible for government policy on SSSIs and for the activities of the statutory agencies, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. However, it is possible that the Lands Tribunal will also be caught by the duty under new Section 28E, which will lead to the same potential problem of conflicting interests and the desire to avoid judicial review by refusing appeals. Indeed, it may be the case that only the courts would be totally independent because they are not bound by the new Section 28E duty. If so, appeals should be heard by a judge in court.
	Those issues need to be discussed and considered. In the light of the Human Rights Act, now in force, I believe, there is a general issue of whether the right to an independent hearing can be effectively exercised where the person hearing the appeal is not fully independent of the legislation under which the appeal is made. It is important that this Bill properly reflects the requirements of the human rights legislation.
	Amendment No. 492 is in a similar vein and seeks to include within appeals against management notices appeals against the contents of a management scheme in so far as they are reflected in the notice. The Bill contains no formal mechanism for appealing against a management scheme. Owners and occupiers can merely make representations on a draft scheme, which must then be considered by the council as per new Section 28H(7). However, the council is not required to amend the scheme in the light of any comments or representations made on it.
	An independent view on a management scheme can be sought only when an owner appeals against a management notice which gives effect to a scheme. If such an appeal can cover the details of the scheme as well as those of the notice, an effective safeguard is provided for owners. It makes sense to provide for appeals against schemes at the point at which they actually "bite" on owners and occupiers; that is, when a management notice is served. However, there is nothing specifically in the Bill to say that appeals against management notices will include appeals against management schemes, to the extent that the notice includes measures specified in the scheme. The amendment corrects that omission. I heard with considerable sympathy what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said in relation to appeals and so forth. But appeals will arise and it is important that the Bill is correct and comes within the human rights laws.
	Furthermore, I understand that members of the National Farmers Union are concerned that owners and occupiers will be restricted to appealing against requirements in a management notice as opposed to having a right of appeal against the imposition of the management scheme itself. Accordingly, they strongly support Amendment No. 492 as it seeks to link the management notice to the scheme as a whole. However, there is also anxiety about the perceived independence of the Secretary of State to hear appeals, given that the nature conservation bodies are his own statutory advisers on nature conservation matters. The NFU believes that the appeal procedure should be seen to be independent of politicians and quangos and urges Members of the Committee to press the Minister on the Government's intentions regarding the delegation of appellate functions to which paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 refers.
	We therefore ask the Minister to think again on the appellate mechanisms before Report stage. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I support my noble friend's amendment. There is no doubt about the significance and importance of the management agreements and the notices that go with them, not only from the point of view of the duties of English Nature and CCW, but also from the point of view of the person who has responsibility for managing the land. The management agreements and notices that follow could have a serious impact on the way the land is managed and how those responsible respond.
	It is essential that appeals are heard in a thoroughly independent way. If the Secretary of State (or his appointee) is under a duty to conserve and enhance, as the Bill describes, how can he possibly be independent? And how can he be put in charge of the appeal procedure? Common justice alone, notwithstanding the human rights aspect, should ensure that Amendment No. 491 is accepted or considered seriously.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply in relation to this human rights issue. I listened carefully to the arguments. Nobody would feel it was fair for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to decide whether or not a farmer could continue with his normal way of earning a living, despite the fact that he was doing damage. Equally, it would not be fair for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do it. At the end of the day, conflicting interests arise in relation to these decisions.
	I do not know what the answer is. But the "fair trial" point is extremely interesting. The whole subject interests me because it is cropping up in so many areas. It is not an exaggeration to say that this may turn into an issue. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It is difficult to try to include the Lands Tribunal in the process because it was set up to deal with different issues--for instance, those between landlords and tenants--and therefore its membership may not be suitable. We are trying to ensure that the appeals are fair and that the public interest is adequately represented. I should be concerned if judges were involved because the process would then become very expensive and bound up with the courts.
	We on these Benches understand concerns that the same department should not be judge and jury. An appeals procedure can adequately involve the Government through the inspectorate process and therefore I would resist any move towards including the Lands Tribunal in particular. I fear that it would represent only one section of the interests in the appeal.

Earl Peel: The noble Baroness acknowledged the fact that there needs to be independence in the procedure and then went on to say that it was important that it should be independent and that the public interest should be represented. However, in order for the system to be thoroughly independent it must be able to represent not only the public interest but also the interest of those responsible for managing the land.
	The noble Baroness may be right in saying that the Lands Tribunal is the wrong vehicle, but I wonder whether she acknowledges the principle that it should be someone other than the Secretary of State or his representative within the department.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain which Secretary of State will be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wondered whether it would be MAFF or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and how they would tie in with equally difficult and contentious issues relating to development and control. Those are as controversial and difficult for owners of land and as difficult to resolve in the public interest as are the kind of issues which will be raised in respect of this legislation. There are not adequate procedures in place at present.

Lord Marlesford: My noble friend has highlighted a problem but I suspect that the solution proposed in the amendment may not be the right one. However, it is axiomatic that while one can have a review of a decision from within a hierarchy, an appeal against a decision cannot be fairly heard within that same hierarchy. Let us face it, in this context "Secretary of State" is another name for an official employed by him.
	The noble Baroness mentioned the inspectorate, but in almost all cases an appeal against, say, a planning refusal by a local authority is made to a wholly separate and independent inspectorate which is not part of the local authority and in a sense cannot be said to be under the direct command of the Secretary of State.
	The Minister must come forward with a solution--although perhaps not today--otherwise an element of unfairness will undermine many of the purposes of the Bill, which many of us support.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is important to put this interesting debate in context. These amendments address the situation in which the conservation agency has served a management notice requiring the owner or occupier to take specific actions to conserve the SSSI, who then has the right to appeal against that notice.
	We have discussed the role of management schemes, but the management notice is an important new tool for the agencies in pursuing the aim of ensuring that all SSSIs are brought into positive management scheme. But it is carefully targeted. It can be used only where there is a management scheme. The scheme will not have been made without preliminary discussions with those who work the land to ensure that what is included is reasonable and practicable. Furthermore, there is a right of appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales. I shall turn to that point in a moment.
	The Secretary of State is an abstract concept. In legislation, there is only one Secretary of State; he is not described as "Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions" or anything else in case the names of departments change. However, one of the ways the Government are described in legislation is "Secretary of State". Incidentally, he is always referred to as "he". When in Opposition, I once tabled amendments to refer to the Secretary of State as "it" on the ground that that was less sexist. I did not get very far, although I am assured that it is done in Oregon.
	The Secretary of State, that abstract concept, is well used to balancing the many different statutory duties under which he works and is required to reach decisions. It is intended that the appeals procedures should be speedy and effective--that takes up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller--and that they should reduce unnecessary formality and keep cost and delay to a minimum. That is in everyone's interest. Such procedures will also allow for full and fair consideration of all the points raised by the conservation agencies and by owners and occupiers appealing against notices.
	I do not doubt that as a court of law--and it is equivalent to a court of law--the Lands Tribunal provides an excellent service in the determination of issues relating to land law and valuation, which is the expertise of the Lands Tribunal and not the kind of considerations we are debating. But I do not believe that the body is appropriate for this type of appeal.
	We envisage that planning inspectors in the Planning Inspectorate, whose independence was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will normally be used in the determination of these appeals. In the vision statement, the Planning Inspectorate has reiterated the aim that the inspectorate should be,
	"the prime source of impartial expertise for resolving disputes about the use of land, natural resources and the environment".
	It already does that, not only in judgments between one individual or organisation and another but, for example, in relation to conservation orders. They are closely comparable to the kind of appeals we are debating and the inspectorate should be ideal for the purpose. Inspectors chosen to hear the cases will have appropriate qualifications which enable them to understand and report on the issues raised. They will provide a report to the Secretary of State, who will issue his decision.
	I was asked, as I have been on many occasions, about the European Convention on Human Rights. The position of planning inspectors was specifically examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bryan case in 1996. While the court established that a planning inspector is not an independent tribunal, planing legislation provides a means of challenging the decision in the High Court. The ECHR also found the scope of judicial review to be sufficient for the purpose of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am satisfied that determination by the Secretary of State fulfils the requirements under the Human Rights Act for a fair and impartial hearing.
	As to the contents of the appeal, raised by Amendment No. 492, the management notice can only be served where an owner or occupier is not giving effect to a management scheme. It would be wholly unfair if the land manager could be required to take action without knowing beforehand what action he might be required to take. He will already have had several opportunities to influence the content of the management scheme, in particular under the consultation provisions in new Section 28H(3). I can assure the Committee that the agencies' staff will listen carefully to the views of those who live on or work the land. We covered that point in our debates on Amendment No. 483C.
	Since the work specified in the notice must be work required to ensure the land is managed in accordance with the scheme, it is implicit that any appeal against the notice may address issues concerning whether the scheme is reasonable to the extent that the scheme is reflected in the management notice. If the appeal is allowed and the notice has no effect because the Secretary of State takes the view that the work is unreasonable or unnecessary, I would expect English Nature to look again at the management scheme and consider how it should be amended. That point was raised under new Section 28H(11) of the Bill which enables it to modify or cancel a scheme.
	I hope that that deals with the points raised in the amendments.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I must confess to some disappointment with the Minister's reply. Unsurprisingly, he is obedient to the instructions contained in his brief--I am not sure whether it is instruction or advice--and is at least content to go along with the proposal that the appeal should go to the Secretary of State.
	It may well be that the Lands Tribunal is not the proper forum before which such an appeal is heard. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on the fact that not everybody shares the confidence of the authors of this Bill. There are worries that those who have designed the scheme are out of sympathy with the needs of the countryside. Those who take that view, of whom I am one, are unlikely to be happy with the notion that, the department having decided something, the Secretary of State is the one who, with the advice of those who have made the decision, hears the appeal. The department, which is a very difficult body to divide up into little pieces, will be on the side of the decision unless something has manifestly gone wrong.
	I hope the Minister accepts that there is real dissatisfaction with the situation. It does not matter to me whether the Secretary of State is he, she or it, or the Minister has an attachment which limits his area of operation. I do not accept that the judgment and wisdom of Secretaries of State is always as immaculate as government supporters like to believe.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to hear those comments, particularly in the light of their source. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was a Minister in charge of a major part of what is now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, knows perfectly well the way in which legislation is formulated and how those on the Government Front Bench debate it. The noble Lord also knows perfectly well that in briefing meetings before the matter comes before the House of Lords, Ministers satisfy themselves that the arguments they put forward are not just plausible but convincing and right.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In view of the noble Lord's reference to my past, when I played a part in the great spongy heap then known as the "Department of the Environment" seeds of doubt began to be sown in my mind, and they have since flourished.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is more joy in heaven when one sinner repenteth. Long may the noble Lord maintain his seeds of doubt! We have a job to do and we carry it out to the best of our ability. I have set out the reasons why we believe that the Planning Inspectorate is sufficiently independent for the purposes of these appeals. I also believe I have shown that when there was a direct challenge to the independence of the inspectorate the European Court of Human Rights found that the scope for judicial review was sufficient. Therefore, the planning legislation provides adequate means to challenge a decision in the High Court. I do not know that I can add to that.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister tell the Committee who employs planning inspectors? If the employer is technically the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are any of the inspectors on temporary contracts?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The taxpayer employs planning inspectors. I do not believe that the inspectors are on temporary contracts, but if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not hear the response of the Minister. Who employs them?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We pay for them as taxpayers. The employer is technically the accounting officer, but I do not believe that it matters.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Who is responsible for making the appointment? Surely, under the European Convention on Human Rights it does matter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a different question from who employs them. As to their appointment, they are appointed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Lord Glentoran: We have had an interesting debate. While I accept the Minister's observations about Amendment No. 492 and the content of any appeal, to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, supported my point about the appellate procedure. My noble friend Lord Peyton made clear our worry, that of the NFU and, I am sure, many others. I said at the beginning of my remarks about this group of amendments that essentially Amendment No. 491 was a probing amendment to test the Government's view on the procedure. On that basis, I do not seek the opinion of the Committee. However, we shall return to this issue. We expect the Government to take another look at it, particularly bearing in mind that, as I understand it, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to which the Minister referred was as long ago as 1996. These matters move on fairly quickly and one wonders where one is now.
	We shall table another amendment at Report stage to deal with this matter. We hope that the Government will give the matter further thought and perhaps table their own amendment, which will save us from moving ours. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 492 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 493:
	Page 101, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 19.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In moving Amendment No. 493 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 494 and 521. This is a group of technical amendments which correct references to the giving of advice by Ministers on the terms of management agreements entered into by the conservation agencies. Section 28K in Schedule 8 explains the circumstances in which the agency may make a payment to an owner or occupier of an SSSI. Amendment No. 493 deletes superfluous references in this section to agreements which are already covered in Section 50 of the 1981 Act. Section 28K(3) indicates that the amount of any payment is to be determined by advice given by the Secretary of State. To ensure consistency with existing references in Section 50, Amendment No. 494 provides for this advice to be given by Ministers (the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food). In Wales this guidance will be issued by the National Assembly. That function is transferred along with other provisions of the 1981 Act.
	Amendment No. 521 refers to Section 50 of the 1981 Act. The amendment removes any reference to the circumstances in which agreements might be offered. Under the Bill these circumstances will become irrelevant. As a result, the agencies will now have a general power to make payments under Section 16 of the 1949 Act and Section 15 of the 1968 Act, but that will be subject to the ability of Ministers to provide guidance generally on payments. We have issued a consultation paper on revised draft guidance. That takes account of the principles for calculating payments to farmers to which we are required to have regard under the European Commission's Rural Development Regulation and the notification of management agreements as a state aid. We shall issue revised guidance taking account of the comments received and the debates in this House and in another place next year. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her explanation of Amendment No. 493. I accept that the point is covered in another section. Perhaps I may just ask for clarification. We have had a debate about the role of Secretary of State, who is a nameless figure--he, she or it--who moves around. Which Minister will be responsible in each department?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that "the Ministers concerned" include the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, where appropriate. But the use of the term "Minister" allows for an extension of that to "appropriate Minister" should that become relevant. I cannot foresee circumstances in which it would in this particular case. That is my understanding. Should that be wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library, particularly for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who is listening very carefully.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I think that the word she is looking for is "convenience". The Secretary of State concerned will be decided according to the convenience of the Government.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am quite sure that the Government always seeks to do things conveniently, but never inappropriately.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 494:
	Page 101, line 21, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Ministers").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 495:
	Page 101, line 30, after ("agreement") insert ("under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act").

Lord Luke: In moving Amendment No. 495, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 496, 497 and 497ZA. These amendments deal with the matter of compulsory purchase. I am grateful to the CLA and the NFU for their considerable input into the four amendments. New section 28L(2) provides that English Nature or CCW may compulsorily purchase land in an SSSI if they are satisfied that they are unable to conclude, on reasonable terms, an agreement with the owner or occupier as to the management of the land. The nature of the agreement is not specified. It is implied that the agreement would be under Section 16 of the 1949 Act, or Section 15 of the 1968 Act. But that is not clear. The amendment would clarify the situation.
	The amendment would also make it clear that English Nature or CCW had to be satisfied that they could not conclude a formal agreement under these provisions. If English Nature or CCW attempted to reach an informal agreement and the owner was unwilling, English Nature or CCW might argue that they could then proceed to compulsory purchase, without attempting to secure a formal agreement. That would be unfair on the owner or occupier, who should expect to be involved not just in informal discussions prior to compulsory purchase, but also in serious formal negotiations over a formal agreement that would meet both the owner's needs and those of English Nature or CCW.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 496. It is an important principle that before exercising any compulsory purchase powers any government body should seek to find alternative ways of achieving its objective. Depriving someone of their land and property in the interests of the state should always be viewed as a last resort.
	Alternative options could include negotiating a management agreement, as provided for under new Section 28L(2)(a). A further option is voluntary purchase. However, although this option is mentioned in the draft financial guidelines in relation to SSSIs, it is not explicitly recorded as a prior condition for compulsory purchase in the Bill.
	It is important, in safeguarding the interests of owners, that such a provision should be added to the Bill. The amendment would accordingly require English Nature or CCW not only to be satisfied that a management agreement could not be secured on the site, but also to have offered to purchase the site voluntarily before the body could exercise its compulsory purchase powers.
	Amendment No. 497 seeks to tighten up the conditions under which English Nature or CCW could manage or dispose of land which it had compulsorily purchased. At present new Section 28L(4)(a) suggests that English Nature or CCW could simply "manage" the land itself. There is no reference to the land needing to be managed for the purpose of conserving the features of scientific interest which it contains. English Nature or CCW might accordingly decide to manage the land for other purposes, including income-earning purposes, which opportunities should properly be available to the owner of the land. English Nature or CCW might, for example, simply open the land up to recreational uses, for which it then charges a fee.
	Similarly, new Section 28L(4)(b) enables English Nature or CCW to dispose of compulsorily purchased land on terms simply designed to ensure that the land is managed satisfactorily. What is there to stop English Nature or CCW selling land for high-value built development? The land would still presumably be managed satisfactorily in its new use.
	The ability of English Nature or CCW to manage the land and to dispose of it should be related closely back to the primary function of conserving the flora, fauna and features of the site. If the land is to be managed by English Nature or CCW, it should be purely for the purpose of conserving its features. If it is to be sold by English Nature or CCW, it should be for the purpose of ensuring that its features can continue to be conserved appropriately. The amendment would achieve both purposes.
	The amendment substitutes for the existing wording in new Section 28L(4)(a) and (b) the wording in new Section 15A of the Countryside Act 1968, which is introduced in Clause 66(3) of the Bill. Unlike the wording of new Section 28L(4), this wording ties in the purposes of management and of disposal closely to the conservation of the features of the land. It provides a useful model.
	Amendment No. 497ZA is quite plain and seems to be fair and equitable. However, if the Government confirm that this situation is covered by Crichel Down principles, I shall be satisfied. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support my noble friend on these amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 496 and 497ZA. With regard to Amendment No. 496, I agree with my noble friend that compulsory purchase should be very much a last resort. If we are to have nationalisation by the Government, or by a quango appointed by the Government, it should be very much a last-ditch performance. Therefore, a reasonable offer should have been made beforehand by the council. I am one of those in a minority, compared to noble Lords on the other side, who still believe that the private ownership of land is the best way to preserve the flora and fauna of our countryside. If that can be managed in partnership with appropriate management agreements, that is far better than compulsory purchase.
	Amendment No. 497ZA is, as my noble friend has rightly said, the Crichel Down principle. That is engraved in every surveyor's heart as an important principle. I see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, nodding. Perhaps it is already covered under other sections. I hope that he will be able to confirm that that is the case.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Given the contention that compulsory orders always engender, we are grateful to the Conservative Front Bench for putting down these amendments in order that the position may be clarified in principle. Although we are not sure that all the amendments are entirely necessary, we feel that they are helpful in ensuring that the situation is just and fair.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may start by confirming that we fully accept the spirit of the amendments, although we think, as I shall show, that they are already provided for. Secondly, we agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Compulsory purchase orders are a matter of last resort. I say that not because of any philosophical views we may hold about public or private ownership of land, and why there should be public or private ownership of land, but because compulsory purchase is expensive and takes a long time and one does not do it unless one has to. Having said that, I want to attempt to show that the amendments are not necessary.
	Amendment No. 495 deals with the actions which the agency should take prior to considering the compulsory acquisition of land. The only powers that the agency has to enter into these agreements are indeed those under Section 16 of the 1949 Act and Section 15 of the 1960 Act. But there is no need for the clause to repeat them. It is a fact of legislation, as any lawyer will confirm. It does not need to go on the face of the Bill.
	Turning to Amendment No. 496, I am also clear that the matter of good practice where the agency fails to secure an agreement and remains deeply concerned about the condition of an SSSI is that it will try to negotiate voluntary purchase of the land. The agency sets aside a small amount of its grant-in-aid to support land purchase by voluntary conservation organisations. Compulsory purchase is an expensive and over-lengthy process. It would be inappropriate for public bodies to enter that process lightly, although in some cases, as is generally recognised, it may be the only option.
	Amendment No. 497 suggests that the actions of the agency in determining what to do on or with the land which it has acquired also need to be constrained in statute. We have heard reference to the difference between new Section 28L and the wording of Clause 66(3), which introduces new Section 15A of the Countryside Act. In contrast to the provisions we are discussing, one of the situations with which Clause 66(3) deals is where the agency may seek to acquire land outside a site of special scientific interest where the actions on that land are having a damaging effect on those special features. However, new Section 28L, which is the subject of this amendment, is different. This compulsory purchase power arises only where the agency is unable to secure the management of the land. Reference to "management" in the context of new Sections 28H to 28J relating to the satisfactory management of SSSIs follows the reference to "management schemes" which are for the conservation or restoration of species or habitats. So "management", as referred to in new Section 28L(4)(a) and (b), will be interpreted in the same way--manage to conserve or restore the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features of the SSSI--and could not be used for income-earning activities or high-priced development. Therefore, I do not think that Amendment No. 497 is necessary.
	I turn to Amendment No. 497ZA. It seems unlikely that land in an SSSI purchased compulsorily will no longer be needed in future for that purpose. But a major disaster or catastrophe could occur so that the land at some point is no longer of SSSI quality. If that were the case, and there was no prospect of the special interest being restored, we would expect a public body to follow normal practice and offer the land back to the original owner or his heirs for purchase. That does not go quite as far as the Crichel Down commitment for which noble Lords asked me, but the question of whether the Crichel Down rules should be statutorily applied to bodies such as the conservation agencies forms part of a government review of compulsory purchase and compensation. A policy paper on that matter is due in the new year. We do not think it would be appropriate to amend this legislation pending a decision on whether the rules should be statutorily applied more widely.
	To sum up, the statutory requirement of the Crichel Down rules does not at the moment apply to the agencies, but we would expect a public body to follow that normal practice and offer the land back.
	I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Luke, enough reassurance to enable him not to press the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: I regret to say that I am not very reassured by the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 497ZA. I did not like the word "expect" when he said that he would "expect" the agency to offer back the land. I would want a stronger commitment than that. I am worried about the review of compulsory purchase as a whole. It would seem sensible that all conservation bodies and other bodies that acquire land compulsorily should be under a formal duty to offer it back, either to the previous owner or his heirs.

Lord Jopling: I wrote down precisely the same words as my noble friend Lord Caithness; namely, "we would expect" that the Crichel Down rules would be followed. I do not think that that is strong enough. I am very alarmed indeed by the Minister's use of those words. I am also alarmed that new guidelines covering the Crichel Down arrangements may come out within the next few months. I am filled with foreboding about that. I am old enough to remember all the fuss over the Crichel Down affair and the situation which emerged when the father of my noble friend Lord Crathorne was in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture and resigned because of the Crichel Down arrangements. It was the actions of the Official Opposition in another place which led to the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale. I am horrified to think that something may happen to erode those rules.
	I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be satisfied with the Minister's explanation on Amendment No. 497ZA. I shall not be in the least disappointed if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the Committee on the matter because, in view of the Minister's words, I think it is time to fire a warning shot.

Lord Williamson of Horton: When I started my career as a young officer in the Ministry of Agriculture two sets of principles had to be respected--the principles of Magna Carta and the principles of the Crichel Down case. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is important that we should not allow a situation to arise where government and ministries are bound by the Crichel Down rules following that case. But the creation of more and more agencies, which is what is happening, means that the rules risk being diluted or even not respected outside government. I realise that there will be a review but I think that we need a fairly firm commitment in this case that the Crichel Down rules will be respected if land which has been compulsorily purchased is after all disposed of by an agency.

Lord Marlesford: The Government have got themselves into a slight timetable muddle. Unfortunately, the review will be published after the Bill is enacted. If that were not the case, I presume that the Government would take account in this legislation of the results of that review. Therefore, between now and Report, the Government should find some way of ensuring that, if the review decides that the Crichel Down rules should have some statutory backing, the Bill can be amended to give effect to that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to make two points in response to the contributions from the last few speakers. First, I should not want Members of the Committee to get the wrong idea about the review. It will not review the Crichel Down rules as applied to government. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, used the word "erosion" while the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, mentioned "dilution". There is no question of any erosion or dilution of the Crichel Down rules. The review will concern whether the Crichel Down rules should be statutorily applied to bodies such as the conservation agencies; namely, whether those rules should be statutorily applied more widely than they are at present. It will be failsafe so far as concerns the Crichel Down rules themselves.
	Secondly, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I do not think that it would ever be appropriate for myself or any other Minister to attempt to anticipate the eventual results of a review and further to make advance commitments as regards the Government's response. However, it is of course a matter of common sense that, if the review recommended that the Crichel Down rules should be extended statutorily to the conservation agencies and if the Government agreed with that view, then the Government would seek legislative means of achieving that.

Viscount Bledisloe: Can the noble Lord enlighten us on what possible justification there can be for the principle that if the Crichel Down rules apply to the Government they should not equally apply to a government-appointed agency? Is there any argument on this point or is this merely a fact of the passage of time?

Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a related question. I understand that the Crichel Down rules refer explicitly to agricultural land. Land being held by a conservation agency perhaps might not fall into that category. Is it possible for the Minister to clarify that point?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All these issues will form parts of the subject matter of the review. It is the case that the Crichel Down rules have already been extended beyond agricultural land, but, as I have said, the review will consider all such matters.

Lord Luke: This has been an extremely interesting debate. I am happy with the Government's replies to Amendments Nos. 495, 496 and 497.
	However, as regards Amendment No. 497ZA, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in favour of seeking a rather more solid commitment from the Government on this point. I take note of the Minister's words as regards the review which is to take place in January--I believe the Minister confirmed that--but the review itself does not solve the problem. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we do not know what will be the result of the review. The question of limiting compulsory purchase to a measure of last resort is extremely important. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that, as the result of a compulsory purchase, the previous owner should receive a proper commitment if there is any diminution in the quality of the land--although that may or may not happen.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to intervene, but I do not know what the noble Lord intends to do with his amendments. To my mind, we have not yet received an adequate response to Amendment No. 497ZA. That amendment seeks to ensure that the former owner will have first refusal to purchase the land. I am not sure whether I have heard on what terms such a first refusal would be granted. However, if the noble Lord intends to return to this matter at a later stage, perhaps it can be dealt with then.

Lord Luke: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 495.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 496 and 497 not moved.]

Lord Luke: As I have already indicated, I am not at all happy with the response given by the Minister. I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 497ZA) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 113.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 497A to 498 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 498A had been renumbered as Amendment No. 497B.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 499:
	Page 103, line 2, at end insert--
	("Change of owner or occupier.
	28N.--(1) This section applies where the owner of land included in a site of special scientific interest--
	(a) disposes of any interest of his in the land; or
	(b) becomes aware that it is occupied by an additional or a different occupier.
	(2) If this section applies, the owner shall send a notice to the Nature Conservancy Council before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he disposed of the interest or became aware of the change in occupation.
	(3) The notice is to specify the land concerned and--
	(a) in a subsection (1)(a) case, the date on which the owner disposed of the interest in the land, and the name and address of the person to whom he disposed of the interest; or
	(b) in a subsection (1)(b) case, the date on which the change of occupation took place (or, if the owner does not know the exact date, an indication of when to the best of the owner's knowledge it took place), and, as far as the owner knows them, the name and address of the additional or different occupier.
	(4) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
	(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), an owner "disposes of" an interest in land if he disposes of it by way of sale, exchange or lease, or by way of the creation of any easement, right or privilege, or in any other way except by way of mortgage.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 500:
	Page 103, line 3, leave out paragraph 2 and insert--
	("2.--(1) Section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b), after "features" there is inserted "notified as being of special interest".
	(3) Omit subsection (2).
	(4) In subsection (3), omit "Subject to subsection (4),".
	(5) Omit subsections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (10).
	(6) After subsection (11) there is inserted--
	"(12) This section does not apply to owners and occupiers of land which is a site of special scientific interest.".").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In moving Amendment No. 500, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 501, which follows from it. Those Members of the Committee who have attended all the debates in Committee will remember the lengthy and interesting discussion that took place on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This amendment seeks to make orders restricting the activities of third parties, to prevent damage to SSSIs and to require restoration of damage where such orders are contravened.
	As the law currently stands, nature conservation orders are made under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Where third party activities on an SSSI are damaging to the notified interest, English Nature and the CCW can ask the Secretary of State to make an order prohibiting such activities on an SSSI with immediate effect, subject to a right of appeal, thus preventing from that moment any further damage. Anyone who ignores the order may be prosecuted and, if convicted, subjected to a fine and an order to restore the damage.
	In paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, the Government propose to repeal Section 29 of the 1981 Act. As a result, no new nature conservation orders will be possible, the existing orders will cease to have effect, and the vexatious activities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will become even more widespread and difficult to control.
	Nature conservation orders go further than the general offence in the Bill. An important feature of such orders is that they apply to the activity in general--in other words, the offence is one of breaching the order rather than causing damage in a particular instance. The orders as they now exist apply to everyone undertaking a particular activity which causes damage overall--in the previous debate we used the example of motor-cyclists using and damaging an area--but, as the Bill is drafted, it seems that in future it will be necessary to prove the offence against every single motor-cyclist causing damage. A general order could not be served against all those undertaking such an activity in a particular area.
	The amendment seeks to preserve the nature conservation orders, which would be subject to appeal, as a last line of defence against damaging activities. It seeks to amend Section 29 so that orders would apply only to third parties. There are good reasons for keeping the orders: they will strengthen the protection afforded and the ability to serve a general order will save time, red tape and money. A general order can be served on anyone undertaking a banned activity; it would not be necessary to serve on individuals separate orders requiring a higher degree of proof of damage. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: The first paragraph of Schedule 8 begins,
	"For section 28 of the 1981 Act",
	and there follow paragraphs relating to that section. In paragraph 2, Section 29 has been orphaned from its parent Act and the Act is not mentioned. I shall never be able to understand parliamentary drafting, but I wonder whether that is an omission. All the other paragraphs refer to the Act to which they apply.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government have been concerned to deal with issues of damage to SSSIs, whatever the source. We are aware that incidents of damage by persons other than owners and occupiers of land--so-called "third parties"--have arisen, and although they are by no means the most serious threat to the condition of SSSIs, nevertheless, where it occurs, damage can be serious. Nor has it always been easy for landowners to address problems, even where activities which are damaging the special features of the site are taking place without permission on their land, and causing problems.
	We have already confirmed, in connection with Part I of the Bill, that normal access by walkers should not damage sites, but Clause 24 (power to make a direction) allows action to be taken to exclude or restrict access if there is likely to be a problem, as advised by the conservation agencies.
	We took full soundings from a wide range of groups before deciding to include in the Bill a specific new provision. This creates an immediate offence of intentional or reckless damage to the features by reason of which the SSSI is of special interest; and following the debate in Committee in another place this was extended to include intentional or reckless disturbance to any fauna of special interest. This is modelled on the offence which already applies in relation to ancient monuments and significantly improves the protection afforded to SSSIs. It will allow the agencies to take immediate action against activities causing damage, or disturbing any special fauna--which includes birds. It carries with it a significant maximum fine of up to £20,000 in the magistrates' court; and where a person is found guilty of an offence, the court may make an order requiring restoration of the site to its former condition.
	These measures are accompanied by changes to road traffic legislation, which will improve and strengthen the powers of the police to act against unauthorised use of land by vehicles. There are also existing powers in relation to prosecution for criminal damage: for example, court action was successfully taken recently where a third party was convicted of arson on a heathland SSSI that was important for smooth snakes and nesting nightjars.
	We believe that, taken together, this is a significant but proportionate response to problems arising on SSSIs. However, I have noted the strong points that have been made and we are prepared to consider whether by-laws, which are the standard approach to avoiding damage by the public and are specifically designed for that purpose, would be appropriate in this case. Powers to make by-laws already apply in relation to European sites and national nature reserves and, if absolutely necessary on further reflection, this is an option we are prepared to consider.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised a question in relation to Section 29 of the 1981 Act. Section 29 of the 1981 Act will cease to have effect. I hope that that is clear. It is the best that I can do in the circumstances. If there is a lack of clarity, I hold myself responsible and I shall, of course, write to the noble Duke.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply. If it is the Government's intention to return on Report to the point about the by-law, perhaps any proposal might cover the points that I made. Our intention is to cover in the simplest way possible serial vexatious activity by lots of individuals. I shall reflect on the Minister's suggestion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 501 not moved.]

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 502:
	Page 103, line 17, after ("operations") insert ("which are reasonable, practicable and necessary").

Lord Luke: It appears that this issue was not raised in Committee in another place, and it is important that restoration requirements are reasonable in all circumstances. I am grateful to the CLA for raising this subject and to the NFU for its input to this amendment.
	A court may make an order requiring a person convicted of damaging an SSSI to carry out such operations as may be specified to restore the site to its former condition.
	Depending on the circumstances of each individual case, such an order might not be reasonable, might not be practicable and, in certain limited cases, might not even be necessary. The amendment would ensure that any such restoration order would be fair by having to meet these criteria. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I am doubtful that there is any need to make specific reference to the consideration of these factors. I am confident that a court, when considering the operations that might be required under a restoration order, would fully consider what was reasonable, practicable or necessary. The provision in the Bill as drafted is in the same terms as Section 31 of the 1981 Act, which has generally operated satisfactorily for many years.
	Under the Bill as drafted, the court would retain its discretion to consider, within the context of the facts of each case, the extent of the operations that might be appropriate under a restoration order. I should also point out that Section 31(4) of the 1981 Act, which will apply, enables the court to discharge or vary a restoration order where there has been a change of circumstances which has made compliance with the restoration order impracticable or impossible. So there is no need for this reference to be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 503:
	Page 103, line 21, at end insert--
	(" . In section 32 (duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest), in subsection (1), for "land notified under section 28(1)" there is substituted "land included in a site of special scientific interest".").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment is one of a group of technical and consequential amendments which incorporates some minor changes.
	Government Amendment No. 503 amends the reference to SSSIs in Section 32 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendment No. 513 amends the reference to SSSIs within the definition of a sensitive area in the Harbours Act 1964. The purpose of both is to include land notified under the new Section 28AA or AB on variation of a boundary, as well as SSSIs notified under Section 28(1).
	Amendments Nos. 504 to 508 are technical amendments which clarify the definition of "a notification" in the 1981 Act to include notifications which have been modified or varied under the various procedures in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 514 merely corrects a typographical error in the Bill, which refers to "simplified planning development" rather than "simplified planning zone".
	Government Amendment No. 551 deletes a superfluous reference to Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Committee may recall that we have already discussed the question of orders under Section 29 in the context of Amendment No. 500. I have explained that the Bill repeals this provision but provides appropriate alternative means of addressing problems which may arise on SSSIs. As a consequence of the repeal of Section 29, Section 30 of the 1981 Act (which provides for compensation where an order under Section 29 is made) is also being repealed, as can be seen in Part III of Schedule 11.
	Government Amendment No. 552 inserts a further minor consequential repeal--this time to a reference to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This Act substituted "trusts of land" for "trusts for sale" in Section 30 of the 1981 Act, in relation to England and Wales. As part of the normal tidying-up exercise, we also need to repeal amendments to the main repealed amendment. That is the reason for government Amendment No. 552. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendments Nos. 504 to 508:
	Page 103, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) In subsection (2), after "district planning authority" insert "and, in sections 28 to 28B, shall also be construed in accordance with section 28(11);".").
	Page 103, line 33, at end insert--
	("(d) extended under section 28AA(2), or
	(e) extended with modifications by virtue of section 28AA(7),").
	Page 103, line 34, leave out ("in subsection (1), and in sections 28 to 28M,").
	Page 103, line 36, leave out from first ("as") to end of line and insert ("thus altered").
	Page 103, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) References to a notification under section 28(1) or 28(5)(b), or to a local land charge existing by virtue of section 28(9), shall be construed in accordance with section 28AB(9).").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Consequential amendments relating to s. 66]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 509:
	Page 42, line 37, at end insert--
	("( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest) (which makes transitional provisions and savings relating to the coming into force of section 66) has effect.").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment introduces a new schedule ("after Schedule 9") setting out the transitional arrangements for SSSIs, as we move from the existing provisions of the 1981 Act to those provided by this Bill. The transitional arrangements make clear what will happen to sites affected by those existing provisions when this Bill comes into force. Noble Lords will have noted that the provisions are necessarily detailed: they have to provide for all situations that may exist in relation to existing SSSIs. We believe that they provide a suitable balance between the rights of owners or occupiers, and the new powers that the Bill gives to the conservation agencies, but we have throughout been mindful of the need to protect the special interests for which these sites have been notified.
	It may be helpful to the Committee if I highlight the major features. First, we need to ensure that an SSSI notified under the old legislation continues as an SSSI under the new; and that all the rights and obligations in this new legislation apply to it. That is achieved in paragraph 2 of the schedule. Where an SSSI has been notified under the 1981 Act, but that notification has not yet been confirmed, these provisions will ensure that the process will continue.
	Secondly, if a consent to an operation was given under the old legislation, that consent will still stand (paragraph 8(1)(b) provides for this). The conservation agency will be able, if necessary, to apply its new power to withdraw or modify that consent. But where that occurs, the same provisions concerning the right of appeal, and the making of payments, will apply as elsewhere in the Bill when consents are withdrawn or modified.
	Thirdly, where an offence takes place on an SSSI, the legislation in force at the time of the offence will be that which applies. The new offences in Section 28M are not retrospective. By the same token, the requirement on public bodies to carry out operations giving rise to as little damage as possible and to restore any damage will not apply where operations have already started when the Bill's provisions come into force.
	Fourthly, where a person gives notice of intent to carry out an operation listed as potentially damaging, the agency has four months under the existing legislation either to give consent or to offer a management agreement. Unfortunately, the agency has been able to do neither on occasions. In those cases, the owner or occupier has been free to go ahead with that operation, and the result has sometimes been damage to the SSSI. For those cases, we now propose providing the conservation agencies with the power to serve a "stop notice", which gives them the opportunity to look again at sites where damage is being caused to the special interest. This allows the application to those sites of the same powers to withdraw or modify consent, to which I have already referred. Similarly, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and a requirement on the agency to make a payment where the owner or occupier suffers loss as a consequence of the notice.
	Fifthly, noble Lords will be aware that, under Section 29 of the 1981 Act, the conservation agency was able to apply to the Secretary of State for a nature conservation order to suspend the four-month period, during which a management agreement might be negotiated. In view of the increased powers available to the agencies under this Bill, such orders are no longer required. However, any land protected by an order when this Bill comes into force will continue to be protected under the new provisions. Accordingly, we have provided a power for the agencies also to serve a stop notice in appropriate circumstances. Again, the rights of the owner or occupier are protected by a right of appeal against the notice.
	Finally, we consider it appropriate to bring some certainty to the situation where, having previously given notice of intent of operations under the 1981 Act and being free to go ahead in the circumstances that I have already explained, an owner or occupier has not yet carried out the work. These may be operations that could damage the SSSI and they may have resulted from notices issued by owners as yet uncertain about future plans. We do not believe that these should have an extended life. Therefore, if they are not implemented within three years of this part of the Act coming into force, we propose that they should cease to have effect. Should the owner or occupier wish to undertake the potentially damaging activity at a future date, he would, under the new provisions, be able to apply to the agency for consent in the normal way.
	It is also important for me to say something briefly about the application of these provisions to Wales. Amendments Nos. 543A, 543B and 543C ensure that the functions of Ministers in respect of the transitional schedule are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. The main provisions in the Bill are devolved by Clause 73. This is consistent with the devolution of the existing provisions in the 1981 Act, which has already taken place under the Transfer of Functions Order 1999. It means that the Assembly will, for example, be able to determine appeals arising from a refusal of consent. But the transitional provisions are included in a separate and free-standing schedule to this Bill. In order that the Assembly may determine appeals arising on the transitional provisions--for example, in appealing against a stop notice--we need to make separate reference to the schedule in the Transfer of Functions Order. That is what the amendments will achieve.
	Perhaps I may also mention a point here that noble Lords may intend to return to later when we discuss Amendment No. 515B: the means of service of a stop notice. Service of notices under the 1981 Act is provided for through Section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as applied by Section 70A of the 1981 Act. This contains provisions for personal service where necessary. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment because it has caused us to have some doubts as to whether the wording of the schedule properly attracts the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Certainly that is our attention. We shall, therefore, consider the point again and, if necessary, bring forward an amendment on Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for going through such a big group of amendments. In fact, it is so big, it is difficult to respond to it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I appreciate that point. If any Member of the Committee wishes to write to me when they have considered the group, I shall endeavour to reply as quickly as possible. I appreciate the complex inter-relationship that is involved. As I say, if Members of the Committee wish to write to me, I shall be only too happy to respond.

Baroness Byford: My comments were not intended as a criticism; I stated a fact. I have several queries with regard to the noble Baroness's response. I shall read Hansard and return to the matter. The measures have a number of implications which I am anxious not to overlook. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of my subsequent amendments comprise probing amendments to these measures. I was glad to hear her clarify that a landowner or land manager of an SSSI who wishes to modify it will be given three years in which to do so but after that time will be able to resubmit his application. As I say, because of the length of the Minister's response, I think that it is much better that I return to the matter at a later stage.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: We are discussing Amendment No. 515, are we not?

Noble Lords: All of the amendments in the group.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It seems to me to be appropriate to make some comments at this stage. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on staying awake during her speech which, through no fault of hers, was not full of interest. It was a terrible recital to have to make. I felt some sympathy for the noble Baroness. However, I have to tell her that not even the charm and good manners with which she normally speaks in this Chamber could invest that material with any charm, although that was not her fault.
	As I understand it, the whole of this schedule is now up for discussion. I should like to be told if I am wrong. Putting it as civilly as I can, I think that it is a fairly revolting monster which was heaved at Parliament as an afterthought. I always find it rather objectionable when Ministers, some of whom are possessed with extremely bad ideas, come to this Chamber and--as on this occasion--empty their slop pail all over the statute book. It makes a nasty, disagreeable mess. I do not think that any amount of tidying up of which this Chamber is capable will be adequate.
	The first point I want to make on this monster schedule is the following. How much prior consultation has there been with the army of people who are concerned in some way or other with sites of special scientific interest? I do not believe that there has been any great amount of consultation. As I understand the measure, it is designed to create bodies and powers and to pass about the powers in a rather high-handed fashion. I hope that the Minister will tell me immediately if he thinks that I have in any way misunderstood the situation. As I see it, this constitutes the major opportunity for us to discuss the schedule in detail. I seek guidance on that. But it seems to me that it would be wrong if we were expected to accept it in the form of an amendment and then say no more. I ask the Minister for guidance on this matter.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise if my concentration made my delivery rather pedantic.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It had nothing to do with the delivery; it was the material that was at fault.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We issued a consultation paper in September 1998. The issues covered in the transitional provisions which the group of amendments encompass take forward the matters that were raised. Although the technical procedure for achieving the objective of this group of amendments is necessarily complex--for which I apologise--the issue is a simple one; namely, how to equate the existing provisions with the provisions in the Bill during the interim period before the Bill is enacted.
	The other important point to place on record is that there has been extensive discussion on the SSSI provisions with the National Assembly for Wales, including the extent of the transfer of functions. The Assembly fully supports the proposed arrangements. I apologise again for the detail of the means of achieving what is a necessary, short-term transitional objective.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 510:
	After Clause 67, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:Compulsory acquisition of land by Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves
	(". In section 17 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (compulsory acquisition of land by Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves), for the words "on terms appearing to them reasonable" there is substituted ", on reasonable terms,".").

Baroness Byford: I refer to the provisions for compulsory purchase under the 1949 Act to be made consistent with those under the Bill.
	In response to strong concerns voiced in Committee in the other place, the Government amended the provisions of the proposed new Section 28L(2)(a) to provide that, before acquiring an SSSI compulsorily, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales should show that they were unable to conclude a management agreement "on reasonable terms", rather than--as originally drafted--
	"terms appearing to them to be reasonable".
	This amendment provided welcome recognition of a lack of balance in the arrangements for compulsory purchase. The ability to take a view on what is reasonable should not lie solely with English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales but should also lie equally with the owner.
	While an appropriate balance has been restored in the Bill between the interests of English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and owners, an inappropriate balance still persists elsewhere. In particular, Section 17 of the 1949 Act, which provides compulsory purchase powers in relation to national nature reserves, provides that land will not be compulsorily acquired unless English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are satisfied that they are unable to conclude a management agreement,
	"on terms appearing to them reasonable".
	The same issue arises here under the proposed new Section 28L(2) as originally drafted. The same correction should accordingly be made. The suggested amendment would ensure consistency among all the provisions relating to compulsory purchase of land by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I support my noble friend's amendment. Clearly, what we are dealing with here is something that requires an objective criterion because it will at times become judicial or quasi-judicial. For the people who make the decision to have the last word on terms appearing to them reasonable seems to be quite wrong in the circumstances. This is an important constitutional point and one which I very much hope that the Government will accept.

Lord Whitty: We are repeating to some degree an earlier discussion. The amendment concerns the circumstances in which the agencies may proceed to acquire compulsorily any interest in land in relation to a national nature reserve.
	The declaration of national nature reserve is at the heart of the agencies' statutory responsibilities. They have a significant statutory role under the 1949 Act in declaring land as a national nature reserve and ensuring once the declaration is made that the land continues to be managed satisfactorily. There are well over 200 such reserves in England and Wales, some in public ownership but the remainder owned privately and managed in accordance with an agreement with the agency. These are truly special sites, often providing substantial opportunities for study and research and in many cases enabling people to experience a particularly fine view of nature at first hand.
	While land is not declared as an NNR without the consent of the landowner, there may be circumstances where the agencies have been unable to enter into or renew an agreement for management of it as a reserve. In those exceptional circumstances, the agencies have the power to acquire the land so that they ensure that it continues to be managed in ways which serve the national interest.
	Once again, that power of compulsory purchase is very much a last resort. But in relation to the acquisition of land for national nature reserves, it does not appear to me unacceptable that the decision whether to make an order acquiring the land should turn on whether the conservation agency is able to conclude an agreement on terms appearing to it to be reasonable. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage how it could judge the reasonableness in any other way. It would have to decide whether it was acting reasonably. That would then be subject to appeal or to a court to judge the reasonableness.
	As we argued in the earlier context, this is a standard approach adopted widely in legislation. I referred earlier to the terms of planning legislation when there is reference to its own opinion and environmental legislation where there is reference to reasonable opinion. There is a full and appropriate means to test the decision--whether the appellate procedure considers it reasonable. But in the first instance it must be for the agency to decide to follow a path which appears to it to be reasonable. The logic of that stands up. The precedent of earlier legislation stands up. There are means to test the decision were the reasonableness of the action to be challenged.

Lord Renton: In effect the Minister says that if the conservation body makes an unreasonable decision which appears to it to be reasonable, it cannot be challenged and will be binding. Surely that is wrong. I know that it has been part of our law for 50 years but surely it is time we had a look at it.

Lord Whitty: The fact that it has been part of our law for 50 years, not only in this context but also in planning and much other environmental legislation, should give us reasonable comfort that it works. I am unaware of any serious incident where the wording of the legislation proved a great problem and was the subject of challenge to those decisions. There may be other aspects of such challenges but the wording of the legislation and the requirement on the agency must surely be as described here. I hope that noble Lords can accept that.

The Earl of Caithness: In his reply, the Minister said that as regards the words,
	"on terms appearing to them reasonable",
	there were full and appropriate means to test that decision. Are the full and appropriate means exactly the same full and appropriate means as those to test the words "reasonable terms"?

Lord Whitty: In so far as I understand the noble Earl's question, the answer is yes.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister may have answered this question, but can the noble Baroness tell the Committee whether there has been a problem during the 51 years since this legislation was introduced? I do not mean this to be derogatory, but, while the amendment appears to be superficially attractive, if there has been no problem, as I suspect may be the case--there has to be reasonableness in assessing whether terms are reasonable to the agency taking a view--perhaps it is better to leave well alone.

Lord Renton: I hesitate to intervene again. However, if there has been no problem for 50 years, it does not mean that there never will be a problem. While we are considering this branch of the law surely we should try to get it right.

Lord Whitty: I cannot argue with that. There could well be a problem next week. The point is that we have had a great deal of experience and there has not been a problem. If a problem should arise in future, it may be of an entirely different order from that anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and we should have to deal with it, as we should have to do should the issue referred to by the noble Lord arise. Prescient as we are as a Government, I do not think that we can entirely anticipate our future problems when we have had 50 years of relatively smooth running.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I find the Government's argument that the matter can always be tested in a court naive. For someone to have to go to the High Court on a judicial review in order to have an interpretation of a decision by an authority, with formidable costs and delay, scarcely constitutes a remedy. In this Chamber we need to be careful when saying that because there has been no problem over the past 50 years there is no problem. The problem is that the remedy is so hugely expensive and complicated that any normal citizen is scared off.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: As the noble Lord said, there may not have been a problem. But when the Minister says that there has not been a problem for 50 years and that if one arises it will have to be dealt with, he credits the system with a speed in these matters that is not often demonstrated.

Baroness Hamwee: I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend, but it is only to a small degree. While agreeing about the cumbersome nature of our judicial system, the amendment does not alter that. If one disagrees with whether terms are reasonable or appear to be reasonable, the same remedies are available and the same processes would be followed.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We must continue this excellent debate! There is a difference. As drafted, the wording could be taken to be more subjective vis-a-vis the authority than the proposed change of wording. That is of help to the citizen and makes it a touch less formidable to dare to question the decision of the authority.

Lord Whitty: I am hesitant to intervene in this little spat on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I side with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Whatever the wording here and however we express the term "reasonableness", it does not alter the fact that the expense and problems would arise if the matter eventually came to court. But that would be a long way down the line because there is an appeal to the Secretary of State and there would be, therefore, a public inquiry, which is rarely as expensive as using the judicial system. That is the context in which reasonableness would be tested in the first instance, were there to be a complaint. I am not sure that the point of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about expense is relevant, except in very few cases. The test occurs at a much earlier stage.

Baroness Byford: I hesitate to come in at all after such eminent lawyers have spoken. I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I am not happy with the Minister's reply. He has not explained why the Government have changed the original wording. I seek leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 510) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 125.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 9 [Consequential amendments relating to sites of special scientific interest]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 511:
	Page 106, leave out line 1.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 511, together with Amendments Nos. 512 and 563, is consequential to Amendment No. 564. That amendment concerns the provisions in Clause 63 and Schedule 7, which extend the offence of prohibiting off-road driving so that it applies to mechanically propelled vehicles rather than to the more narrowly defined "motor vehicles". As the Bill stands, that extended prohibition would apply only in England and Wales. The purpose of Amendment No. 564 is to apply it also to Scotland. Other changes brought in by Amendment No. 564 are consequential.
	The amendments can be made only by the Westminster Parliament rather than the Scottish Parliament because the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. It is essential that that area of law should remain the same in England, Wales and Scotland. We have a single Highway Code for England, Wales and Scotland, approved by the Westminster Parliament, and any generally applicable traffic law which motorists need to observe should be uniform throughout Great Britain.
	The amendment also extends paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to Scotland. If that paragraph were not included, paragraph 5 of the schedule would make it an offence in Scotland to use an invalid carriage off-road. That is not the case at present. Although the provision of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 amended by paragraph 3 is devolved, the Scottish Executive has asked for the amendment to be made in this Bill as it is purely consequential on the rest of Schedule 7 and would not otherwise be necessary. It is obviously in the interests of people with disabilities that the exemption should come into force at the same time as Clause 63 and the rest of Schedule 7.
	Amendments Nos. 511, 512 and 563 concern what until now have been the only provisions in the Bill which extend to Scotland: paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 9. They do not change the law in Scotland but merely reflect changes that this Bill will make by repealing provisions for England and Wales that will remain in force in Scotland. As Amendment No. 564 will add another Scottish provision, the drafting will be clearer if Clause 78 alerts the reader to all the provisions which will apply to Scotland rather than burying it in the schedules. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord very much for his explanation of Amendment No. 564. It was extremely difficult for someone such as me to understand what on earth the amendment intended. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who I see is in his place, is of course a great expert on these matters and may have something else to say.
	I believe that this is an example of devolution working properly. As the noble Lord said, Westminster asked the Scots Parliament whether it was in order for Westminster to legislate on this matter because it was necessary for it to do so, and that has happened. That is good news for devolution, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is even better than that because the Scottish Parliament has asked Westminster to include this provision in the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 512 to 514:
	Page 106, leave out line 5.
	Page 106, line 7, at end insert--
	("Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40)
	. In Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders), in paragraph 1 (interpretation), for paragraph (a) of the definition of "sensitive area" there is substituted--
	"(a) land within a site of special scientific interest (within the meaning of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981);".").
	Page 106, line 37, leave out ("development)") and insert ("zone)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 515:
	After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule--
	:TITLE3:SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest
	:TITLE3:Interpretation
	1.--(1) In this Schedule--
	"the Nature Conservancy Council" has the meaning given by section 27A of the 1981 Act;
	"old section 28" means section 28 of the 1981 Act as it had effect before its substitution by section 66(1) of and Schedule 8 to this Act;
	"new section 28" means section 28 of the 1981 Act as substituted by section 66(1) of and Schedule 8 to this Act; and
	"the substitution date" means the date on which new section 28 is substituted for old section 28,
	and references to other sections are to those sections in the 1981 Act unless otherwise specified.
	(2) Nothing in this Schedule prejudices the application of section 16 (general savings) or 17 (repeal and re-enactment) of the Interpretation Act 1978 to any case not provided for in this Schedule.
	:TITLE3:Notifications given under old section 28
	2. Except as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5, a notification under old section 28(1)(a), (b) or (c) (including one having effect in modified form by virtue of old section 28(4C)) has effect from the substitution date as if it were a notification under new section 28(1)(a), (b) or (c) respectively.
	3. A notice under old section 28(4A)(a) or (b) has effect from the substitution date as if it were a notice under new section 28(5)(a) or (b) respectively.
	:TITLE3:Modification of operation of new section 28
	4. New section 28(2) does not apply to a notification taking effect as mentioned in paragraph 2.
	5. The words following paragraph (b) in new section 28(4) do not apply to a notification taking effect as mentioned in paragraph 2, but instead paragraph 6 applies.
	6.--(1) The Nature Conservancy Council shall, within the period of five years beginning with the substitution date, give a notice to every owner and occupier of any land which is the subject of--
	(a) a notification under old section 28(4A)(b), or
	(b) a notice under new section 28(5)(b) following a notification under old section 28(1),
	containing a statement of the Council's views about the matters referred to in the words following paragraph (b) in new section 28(4).
	(2) The notice shall specify the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to it may be made; and the Council shall consider any representation or objection duly made.
	(3) Within the period of two months beginning immediately after the period of three months referred to in sub-paragraph (2), the Council shall give a notice to every owner and occupier of the land confirming the statement referred to in sub-paragraph (1) or containing a revised statement.
	:TITLE3:Modification of operation of section 28A
	7.--(1) This paragraph applies to a notification under old section 28(1) given--
	(a) before the commencement of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985; or
	(b) after the commencement of that Act but preceded by a notice under section 28(2) as originally enacted, given during the six months immediately preceding that commencement.
	(2) In relation to a notification to which this paragraph applies, the reference in section 28A(1) to--
	(a) notice given under section 28(5)(b) confirming a notification with or without modifications, and
	(b) the confirmed notification,
	shall be construed as a reference to the notification under old section 28(1).
	:TITLE3:Modification of operation of section 28C
	8.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 9--
	(a) a notice given under old section 28(5)(a) has effect from the substitution date as if it were a notice given under section 28C(1)(a); and
	(b) a consent given under old section 28(6)(a) has effect from that date as if it were a consent under section 28C(3)(a).
	(2) In relation to such a consent, section 28C has effect as if for subsections (7) and (7A) there were substituted--
	"(7) A notice under subsection (6) must include a notice of--
	(a) the Council's reasons for withdrawing or modifying the consent;
	(b) the rights of appeal under section 28D;
	(c) the effect of subsection (8); and
	(d) the effect of section 28K."
	9.--(1) Subject to paragraph 10, this paragraph applies where--
	(a) a notice has been given under old section 28(5)(a) before the substitution date;
	(b) on the substitution date neither of the conditions set out in old section 28(6)(a) and (b) is fulfilled; and
	(c) on the substitution date four months have expired since the notice under old section 28(5)(a) was given,
	but even if those conditions are fulfilled, this paragraph does not apply in relation to operations specified in a notice under section 29(4)(a) on any land if immediately before the substitution date an order under section 29 was in effect in relation to that land.
	(2) Where this paragraph applies, but subject to sub-paragraph (7), the prohibition in section 28C(1) on carrying out, or causing or permitting to be carried out, an operation does not apply in relation to an operation specified in the notice under old section 28(5)(a).
	(3) Where this paragraph applies, the Nature Conservancy Council may, on or after the substitution date, give a notice (a "stop notice") to every owner and occupier of the land to which the stop notice is to apply.
	(4) A stop notice is to specify--
	(a) the date on which it is to take effect;
	(b) the operations to which it applies; and
	(c) the land to which it applies,
	and must contain a notice of the right of the person to whom the stop notice is given to appeal against it in accordance with paragraph 11, and a notice of the effect of sub-paragraph (8).
	(5) The date on which a stop notice is to take effect may not be sooner than the end of the period of three days beginning with the date the stop notice is given, unless the Council consider that there are special reasons which justify a shorter period, and a statement of those reasons is included with the stop notice.
	(6) The operations to which a stop notice may apply are all or any of the operations specified in the notice under old section 28(5)(a).
	(7) From the date on which the stop notice takes effect, sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph ceases to apply in relation to the operations specified in the stop notice on the land to which the stop notice applies.
	(8) Where the Council give a stop notice, they shall make a payment to any owner or occupier of the land who suffers loss because of it.
	(9) The amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (8) is to be determined by the Council in accordance with guidance given and published by the Ministers (within the meaning of section 50).
	(10) Section 50(3) applies to the determination of the amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (8) as it applies to the determination of the amount of payments under that section.
	(11) This paragraph ceases to apply, in relation to any operation specified in the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) except an operation to which a stop notice applies, if the operation has not begun before the end of the period of--
	(a) three years beginning with the substitution date; or
	(b) in a case falling within paragraph 10(2) or (3), three years beginning immediately after the expiry of the period of one month or longer referred to there.
	10.--(1) An agreement under old section 28(6A) in effect immediately before the substitution date has effect from the substitution date as an agreement that paragraph 9 is not to apply in relation to the operation which is the subject of the agreement; and, accordingly, paragraph 9 does not apply in relation to that operation (as regards both the owner and the occupier of the land).
	(2) Where a notice has been given under old section 28(6B) before the substitution date, paragraph 9 has effect, in relation to the operation in question, as if for the period mentioned in paragraph 9(1)(c) there were substituted the period of one month from the giving of the notice or (if a longer period is specified in the notice) that longer period.
	(3) If after an agreement has taken effect as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) the relevant person (whether a party to the agreement or not) gives the Nature Conservancy Council written notice that he wishes to terminate the agreement, then as from the giving of the notice paragraph 9 has effect, in relation to the operation in question (as regards both the owner and the occupier of the land), as if for the period mentioned in paragraph 9(1)(c) there were substituted the period of one month from the giving of the notice or (if a longer period is specified in the notice) that longer period.
	(4) In sub-paragraph (3), "relevant person" has the same meaning as in old section 28(6C).
	11.--(1) A person to whom a stop notice is given may by notice appeal against it to the Secretary of State, but meanwhile it remains in effect.
	(2) Section 28D(3) to (11) shall apply in relation to such an appeal as they apply in relation to an appeal against a decision to withdraw a consent (see section 28D(1)(d)), but with the following modifications--
	(a) as if, in section 28D(3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) and the following words "or, in either case," there were substituted "within the period of two months beginning with the date of the stop notice, or"; and
	(b) as if, for section 28D(5), there were substituted--
	"(5) On determining the appeal, the Secretary of State may quash or affirm the stop notice; and if he affirms it, he may do so either in its original form or with the removal from it of such operations as he thinks fit, or in relation to such reduced area of land as he thinks fit."
	12.--(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may, by notice given to every owner and occupier of land to which a stop notice applies, vary a stop notice by removing any operation to which it applies or reducing the area of land to which it applies.
	(2) Where after giving a stop notice--
	(a) the Council consent to an operation to which the stop notice applies;
	(b) an operation to which it applies becomes one which may be carried out under the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968; or
	(c) an operation to which it applies becomes one which may be carried out in accordance with a management scheme under section 28H or a management notice under section 28I,
	the stop notice shall be deemed to be varied accordingly by the removal from the stop notice of the operation in question in relation to the land to which the consent, agreement or management scheme or notice relates.
	:TITLE3:Modification of operation of section 28D
	13.--(1) Section 28D(1)(a) does not apply to a refusal of a consent under old section 28(6)(a).
	(2) Section 28D(1)(b) does not apply to consents taking effect as mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b).
	:TITLE3:Modification of operation of section 28F
	14. Section 28F does not apply in relation to operations which have already begun on the date section 28F comes into force.
	:TITLE3:Section 29
	15. Paragraphs 16 and 17 apply where, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act, there is in effect an order applying section 29(3) to any land ("the relevant land").
	16.--(1) If the relevant land is not included in a site of special scientific interest, section 28C applies to it as if it were (and accordingly section 28M(1) applies also); and references in section 28C to a notification under section 28(1)(b) shall be construed as references to an order under section 29.
	(2) Whether or not the relevant land is included in a site of special scientific interest, a notice given under section 29(4)(a) has effect as if it were a notice given under section 28C(1)(a), except as provided in paragraph 17.
	(3) Whether or not the relevant land is included in a site of special scientific interest, a consent given under section 29(5)(a) has effect as if it were a consent given under section 28C(3)(a), and in relation to such a consent section 28C has effect as if for subsections (7) and (7A) there were substituted--
	"(7) A notice under subsection (6) must include a notice of--
	(a) the Council's reasons for withdrawing or modifying the consent;
	(b) the rights of appeal under section 28D;
	(c) the effect of subsection (8); and
	(d) the effect of section 28K."
	17.--(1) This paragraph applies where--
	(a) a notice has been given under section 29(4)(a) before the repeal of section 29 by paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act;
	(b) on the date on which paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act comes into force, neither of the conditions set out in section 29(5)(a) and (b) is fulfilled; and
	(c) on that date the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 29(5) (or in that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of section 29(6) or (7)) has expired.
	(2) Where this paragraph applies, but subject to paragraph 9(7) as it has effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph, the prohibition in section 28C(1) on carrying out, or causing or permitting to be carried out, an operation does not apply in relation to an operation specified in the notice under section 29(4)(a).
	(3) Paragraphs 9(3) to (11) and 11 of this Schedule apply also in relation to this paragraph, but as if--
	(a) in those provisions references to a notice under old section 28(5)(a) were to a notice under section 29(4)(a); and
	(b) the reference to "sub-paragraph (2)" in paragraph 9(7) were to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
	18.--(1) This paragraph applies where--
	(a) as a result of the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act, a local inquiry or a hearing (as mentioned in paragraph 4(1)(a) and (b) respectively of Schedule 11 to the 1981 Act) comes to an end, and
	(b) an owner or occupier of land in relation to which an order under section 29 has been made has incurred expense in connection with opposing the order at the local inquiry or hearing.
	(2) If this paragraph applies, the Nature Conservancy Council shall (subject to sub-paragraph (3)) pay a person's expenses referred to in paragraph (1)(b) to the extent that they are reasonable.
	(3) The Council need not pay any such expenses unless the person--
	(a) applies to the Council for such a payment; and
	(b) satisfies the Council that he has incurred the expenses.
	:TITLE3:Compensation and grants
	19.--(1) Despite its repeal by paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act, section 30 (compensation where order made under section 29) continues to apply in connection with an order made under section 29 before the coming into force of that paragraph.
	(2) After the repeal of section 29 by that paragraph, section 32 (duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest) continues to apply, in relation to an application under that section relating to land to which section 29(3) applied immediately before its repeal, as if that land were included in a site of special scientific interest.
	:TITLE3:Offences and restoration orders
	20.--(1) Section 28M does not have effect in relation to an offence committed before the substitution date, but old section 28 or, as the case may be, section 29, has effect instead.
	(2) In relation to an offence under section 29, section 31 as it had effect before the coming into force of paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 to this Act shall continue to apply.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 515, Amendment No. 515A:
	Line 3, leave out ("AND SAVINGS").

Baroness Byford: For clarification, I believe that debate on my amendments to Amendment No. 515 follow and that we then return to debate Amendment No. 515.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps we may have guidance from the Minister.

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 515A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 515B to 515G. I hope that that is in order.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps my noble friend will explain whether we have gone past Amendment No. 515.

Noble Lords: No.

Baroness Byford: I apologise to my noble friend. He is sitting behind me and perhaps did not quite hear. I understand that my Amendments Nos. 515A to 515G are dealt with before we return to debate Amendment No. 515. I hope that that clarifies the position.
	These are probing amendments to clarify the proposed new schedule. Amendment No. 515A simply raises a question. The Minister may well tell me that it is obvious, but I am not sure why the title of Amendment No. 515 refers to "Transitional provisions and savings". I cannot understand why savings are suddenly relevant but it may well be that that term is used in all amendments. Therefore, Amendment No. 515A simply raises that question.
	Amendment No. 515B stipulates that a stop notice is handed to an owner or occupier. If I am correct, an owner has only three days' notification before a stop notice takes effect. Our postal system is much improved but not perfect, and therefore it seems right that the authority should be content that the person for whom a stop notice is intended has received it. A turnaround of three days seems a little tight. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	Amendment No. 515C attempts to clarify which Act is referred to in line 121. I presume that it is the 1981 Act.
	In Amendment No. 515D I seek to add the words,
	"in effect immediately before the substitution date".
	Again, I seek clarification.
	Amendment No. 515F seeks to leave out the words "one month" and to insert "four months". I believe that it is clear that the intention of the amendment is to provide a longer time schedule. There are references earlier in the Bill to "four months" rather than "one month". Therefore, I wondered why one month was being applied to this proposed new schedule where four months have been applied in earlier parts of the Bill.
	Finally, Amendment No. 515G speaks for itself. I beg to move Amendment No. 515A.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to be clear that I shall have an opportunity to make observations on Amendment No. 515. I see that I am being invited to speak on that now and I am much obliged.
	I believe that this is a monster schedule which has been flung at Parliament rather at the last minute. I am willing to sit down at any time if the Minister disagrees with anything that I say; I shall gladly give way.
	It seems to me that this schedule has been flung at Parliament with a minimum of consultation. It has been steam-rollered through another place and now we are faced with it here. So far, nobody has said anything to justify it.
	It deals primarily with areas of outstanding natural beauty. It seems to treat them as though they were national parks. It sets up conservation boards and places some obligation upon them, which is probably a good thing, to foster the economic and social well-being of the community.
	I find this schedule objectionable. There has been very little consultation and I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation for that. The noble Baroness is looking very disturbed. If I am mistaken, perhaps she will explain my error.
	I wish to make absolutely clear my own objection to this very long new schedule with which we have been landed. I find it very difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is happy to ask the Committee to accept this proposed new schedule. It is long and complicated and deals with extremely important powers. There seems to be little concern for those who are owners or otherwise involved in areas of outstanding natural beauty. In particular, I am thinking of those who live in such areas. It may be that the noble Lord can allay my anxieties. I should be grateful to him if he will do so.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord clearly has deep-seated anxieties about the introduction of this schedule. My noble friend Lady Farrington was looking puzzled because she thought that she had explained it adequately earlier. Schedule 9 introduces no new principle to the Bill. It is a transitional provision which is required so that we can move from the present situation to the new provisions provided in this legislation. The matter is complicated.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am referring to the material which comes after Schedule 9. If I referred to it as a schedule, perhaps I was wrong. Have I now confused the Minister?

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 515 effectively introduces the schedule. I thought it was the content of the schedule to which the noble Lord was referring as daunting, unprecedented and not consulted on. I believe that that summarises what he was saying.
	Aspects of the schedule have been consulted on, as my noble friend said earlier; and the principle has definitely been consulted on. The schedule is merely a transitional mechanism for taking us from the present legislative position in relation to SSSIs and AONBs to the situation to which other schedules and clauses of the Bill will apply. Therefore, new principles are not introduced. This provision is merely a mechanism for getting us to principles on which we have consulted and which we have debated or are about to debate. I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the noble Lord's concerns. I do not deny that it is a large and complicated schedule, but I fear that transitional arrangements often are complicated.
	Perhaps I may move to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It may be helpful to the Committee, in this particular circumstance, were the noble Lord to describe the schedule to us, as he doubtless will when he moves his amendment. I know that it is the wrong way round, but we do not know what my noble friend is seeking to amend. It may be that we can half understand the matter from a reading of the schedule but we look forward to hearing what it is all about.
	There is something wrong with the procedure here. This new proposal is being introduced in the form of an amendment and we must then discuss my noble friend's amendments, which are amending something which we do not yet understand. How can we judge my noble friend's amendments?

Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lady Farrington introduced the debate on Amendment No. 509, with which Amendment No. 515, which introduces the schedule, was grouped. She described it in some considerable detail--and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was concerned about her ability to stay awake throughout. It was a fairly lengthy description.
	Because of the procedure that we adopt in Committee, the noble Baroness's amendments to Amendment No. 515--the key amendment--are dealt with when we reach Amendment No. 515. We dealt with the totality of the schedule at an earlier stage and we are now discussing the noble Baroness's proposed detailed amendments to it. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness concurs with that.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying a situation which has been extremely confusing. I can understand why Members of the Committee are becoming confused. The Government have spoken to Amendment No. 515 and I am now dealing with my amendments to that amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have been confused, but ever since this argument started, I have always said that I should be willing to accept guidance from Ministers. Perhaps I may now advert to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. At the time I said that it was really somewhat indigestible. Its indigestibility was hardly overcome by the charm and sweetness of the noble Baroness, if I may express the matter in that way. The noble Baroness could not do other than read it out. She could not sing it. It would have been a very cacophonous affair.
	I am sorry to say that in the absence of any real explanation which was palatable or comprehensible, I misunderstood the situation.

Lord Whitty: I accept that. For a moment, I thought that the noble Lord was asking me, or indeed my noble friend, to sing the explanation again. I am sure that when the noble Lord reads Hansard the situation will become clearer Indeed, my noble friend offered to write to the noble Lord on particular issues so that we can clarify matters before we return to this on Report.
	In the meantime, there are a number of specific amendments to Amendment No. 515 with which the noble Baroness wants me to deal. Therefore, I must respond to them. Amendment No. 515A seeks to delete the word "savings" from the heading. Apparently, that is a term of art. I remember coming across this in another piece of legislation and being completely baffled by it. However, I know that it refers to those parts of the legislation which are needed to be preserved and, therefore, remain in force with the appropriate existing rights attaching to them. That is why the word "savings" appears in the schedule. Paragraph 14 of the schedule provides an illustration of that.
	Amendment No. 515B deals with the issue of the stop notice and whether there should be delivery by hand. The noble Baroness's proposal may be rather impractical in some circumstances; namely, where the owner or occupier is abroad. Sections of the Town and Country Planning Act contain provision for personal service, where necessary. However, I believe that my noble friend indicated that she was grateful for this amendment because it has caused us to have some doubts as to whether the wording properly attracts the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore, we agreed to look again at that and, if necessary, to come back to the House on Report.
	Amendment No. 515C refers to the 1981 Act. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is redundant because paragraph 1 of the schedule already provides that references to sections are to those sections of the 1981 Act. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary.
	Amendment No. 515D seeks to address the situation where there have been discussions about a notice of intent to carry out potentially damaging operations and the agency and the land manager have agreed to suspend the normal four-month period allowed for under the old Section 28(5). Paragraph 10(1) ensures that those agreements continue in place, where they are current, when the new provisions for SSSIs come into force. The effect of the amendments of the noble Baroness would appear to extend that to all agreements, including those that have expired before the new provisions come into effect. There seems little point to that as there is no need to make specific provision for agreements that have ended. If the agreement has expired, the operation to which it referred would be covered by paragraph 9 and could be carried out. In those circumstances, the agencies' powers to serve a stop notice may come into play if damage occurs. I hope that some wider application addresses that concern.
	Amendment No. 515E addresses the situation where such agreements have been reached, but the landowner or occupier has given notice of his or her intention, before the substitution date, to terminate the agreement. There will be a period of one month from the giving of notice before the works can be carried out. Amendment No. 515E does not appear to achieve any change in that because a notice under the old Section 28(6B) cannot be given after the date when the new provisions come into force. However, it appears to be clearer if the reference is left standing.
	I am unsure whether the noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 515F, but that would relate to paragraph 10(3) of the schedule which retains a power for the land manager to terminate an agreement reached prior to the substitution date. The one-month period referred to in paragraph 10(3) is carried forward from the old Section 28(6B) and is the length of notice that the land manager needs to give to terminate the agreement and to begin work. We believe that it is fairer to owners and occupiers to have that period set at one month rather than four months.
	I am not sure that I understand the purpose of Amendment No. 515G, which relates to the expression "relevant person". Those persons are set out in the old Section 28(6C) and they are the owner of the land where the agreement was made by the owner, or the occupier where the occupier made the agreement. The saver in paragraph 10(3) in relation to whether the person was a party to the agreement or not covers any changes in ownership subsequent to that agreement, so I believe it is clear who was the original party. That covers the situation where they have changed.
	I appreciate that some of these responses are a little complicated, particularly the latter two. It may be sensible if I write to the noble Baroness explaining the situation in more detail.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As the Committee thought that Amendment No. 515 was complex, he will understand why I felt it important to try to clarify some of my amendments to his amendment. I thank him for agreeing to look at Amendment No. 515B again.
	Amendment No. 515G is a probing amendment in relation to the relevant person not being the person with whom the agreement was made but who would be able to terminate the agreement. Perhaps I may suggest that all noble Lords should reflect on what has been said in this debate and we can return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 515B to 515G, as amendments to Amendment No. 515, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 515 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Ramsar sites]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 516:
	Page 42, line 45, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 517:
	Page 43, line 18, leave out ("The Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 518:
	After Clause 68, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:STATUTORY UNDERPINNING OF THE BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall each determine and keep under review from time to time--
	(a) the species and habitats of conservation concern; and
	(b) from amongst such species and habitats, the priority species and priority habitats of conservation concern,
	which, as regards the Secretary of State, occur in England and, as regards the National Assembly for Wales, occur in Wales.
	(2) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall each establish the criteria for determining the species and habitats under subsection (1), having regard to--
	(a) the advice of the relevant nature conservation body; and
	(b) the criteria which have hitherto been relied upon in determining the species and habitats of conservation concern and priority species and habitats of conservation concern in the United Kingdom under the existing Biodiversity Action Plan regime,
	and, taking into account the advice of the relevant nature conservation body, may from time to time review such criteria.
	(3) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall each--
	(a) take measures to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement, by any person, of the species and habitats of conservation concern determined by him or it in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (1);
	(b) take additional measures to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement, by any person, of the priority species and priority habitats of conservation concern determined by him or it in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (1); and
	(c) compile, publish and maintain, in such form as he or it thinks fit, a register of the species and habitats of conservation concern and the priority species and priority habitats of conservation concern determined by him or it in accordance with subsection (1).
	(4) Every Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975) and government department shall, when exercising their functions and consistent with the proper exercise thereof, secure or further the implementation of the measures taken in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (3) and additional measures taken in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (3).
	(5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the National Assembly for Wales--
	(a) to ensure that the register referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and
	(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.
	(6) In this section--
	(a) a reference to "the existing Biodiversity Action Plan regime" is a reference to the regime set out in the publications entitled--
	(i) Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, volume 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge, 1995;
	(ii) Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, volume 2: Action Plans, 1995; and
	(iii) Government Response to the UK Steering Group Report on Biodiversity, 1995;
	(b) "the relevant nature conservation body" means--
	(i) in respect of the Secretary of State and in respect of species and habitats which occur in England, the Nature Conservancy Council for England; and
	(ii) in respect of the National Assembly for Wales and in respect of species and habitats which occur in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales.").

Baroness Byford: It is with some relief that I rise to move an amendment that I believe is uncontroversial. From the support that I have received from all sides of the Chamber, I believe that this amendment will be welcomed by many noble Lords.
	Amendment No. 518 deals with the statutory underpinning of the biodiversity action plan. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Moran--the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is not in his place--for adding their names to what I believe is an important amendment. Many of us believe that the Government should accept the thrust of this amendment and I hope that at the end of this debate the Government will adopt it.
	Earlier discussions in Committee on this Bill have dealt with the many demands placed upon farmers, land managers, local authorities, companies, charities and individuals, in relation to the time and finance spent on the conservation and preservation of our countryside. We are also aware that unfortunately some of the United Kingdom's wildlife has suffered. I want to place on record my thanks to the many thousands of people who, over many years, have worked so hard to look after our wildlife. I also thank members of the public whose membership of wildlife organisations has provided finance for such conservation work.
	Currently, there is no statutory obligation on the Government to advance or support biodiversity action plans. As many noble Lords are aware, the Government have various schemes to which farmers and land managers can apply for grant aids, either through SSSIs or through schemes more directly related to farming. In some instances, those schemes are already oversubscribed. In addition, English Nature has management agreements with owners or occupiers to conserve or to enhance conservation interests.
	However good our intentions are, they can fail. The Countryside Council for Wales, which was originally operated with a government budget that it regarded as inadequate, has had to drop a significant section of its workload. It has had to prioritise its programmes and its statutory duties have had to take precedence. Consequently, as biodiversity action plan work in Wales has not been a priority, the benefits have not been achieved. I could give other examples but I suspect that other noble Lords will want to speak on this amendment.
	In responding to a debate on biodiversity action plans in another place, the honourable Chris Mullin stated that the Government are very sympathetic to the proposals, but the danger is that the proposals will provide a statutory basis for species and that habitat action plans would place the onus on the public sector and might put at risk the highly successful delivery partnerships of the statutory, business and voluntary sectors. I do not agree with that. I believe that statutory underpinning would not take away from voluntary contributions. Later, Mr Mullin said that the Government are prepared seriously to consider placing the biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Due to the lapse of time between the debates in another place and here I hope that the Government will feel able to accept our amendment.
	This amendment has been supported by many organisations dealing with wildlife and conservation work. It was prioritised by the coalition of the voluntary wildlife organisations under the banner "Wildlife and Countryside Link", which considered it to be the most important improvement that could be made to the Bill.
	Friends of the Earth, in its briefing to Peers, recognises that Amendment No. 518 would greatly improve the conservation of species and habitats in the wider countryside, as does the RSPB and many other organisations. Unfortunately, I missed the debate we had as recently as last Friday--I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, in his seat--when noble Lords took the House through the recommendations in the Select Committee report on the Biodiversity Action Plan. That committee agreed that the process should be put on a statutory footing.
	There were some positive responses following that debate, on which I shall leave other Members of the Committee to comment. I had an opportunity earlier today to speak to the Minister and am hopeful that the Government will be able to give us a positive response. To be flippant for a moment, it would be wonderful to have an amendment which has support throughout the Chamber accepted by the Government. This is a serious issue. Chris Mullin in the other place felt that putting it on a statutory basis would jeopardise the work being achieved by the many voluntary organisations. I do not agree and I hope that, with the passing of the months, the Minister will follow that line of thought. With great pleasure, therefore, I beg to move.

Lord Judd: I have great pleasure in supporting Amendment No. 518. As the noble Baroness indicated, we debated much of the substance of the amendment last Friday in our biodiversity debate on the recent report by Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Union.
	The Committee may recall that the sub-committee came down firmly in favour of putting biodiversity planning on a statutory footing. Unlike other countries--for example, the United States with its Endangered Species Act--the UK still lacks legislation specifically promoting the recovery of endangered or threatened species, or the recovery of habitats which have declined or are in decline.
	Speaking as a member of Sub-Committee C, in the debate last Friday I argued that there is no room for complacency. The WWF estimates that more than half the existing sites of special scientific interest are in a deteriorated or damaged condition, and that more than 20 sites have been damaged in the months since last year's Queen's Speech.
	As the noble Baroness powerfully argued, biodiversity action plans involve many stakeholders, including of course conservation organisations, farmers, private companies and individual landowners on a voluntary participating basis. I would go so far as to say that, without such partnerships, it would be impossible to deliver long-term conservation objectives. But it is not sufficient for the entire biodiversity action plan process to be dependent on good will. For example--the noble Baroness referred to this also--Friends of the Earth, of which I am a member, argues that species recovery programmes and habit regeneration schemes are necessarily realised over long time-scales and that private sector stakeholders need to be sure that public sector bodies will remain committed to the process for whatever time is needed. Unfortunately, as matters stand, private sector stakeholders feel their working commitment to be in jeopardy because there is evidence that local authorities, quangos and government departments are increasingly giving such action plans lower priority. There is genuine anxiety lest the essential momentum is lost, with dire consequences for precious wildlife.
	The noble Baroness referred to the Countryside Council for Wales and the fact that it has moved backwards in terms of its commitment. What is disturbing is that it decided to stop work on 102 of 222 biodiversity action plans which apply to Wales. As the Minister will have noticed, the argument is not for the plans themselves to become legally binding and there is no intention to prescribe how they should be implemented; what is being argued is that, to ensure government and public sector commitment to the biodiversity action plan process, there should be a baseline requirement for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to prepare, maintain and periodically review action plans and to further the objectives of such plans.
	I find it interesting that, as I understand it--my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong--a statutory requirement for the Mayor of London to prepare, maintain and review a biodiversity action plan for London is already in place. But why only London? Surely a similar requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales and other government departments.
	I recognise that during Report stage in the other place, the Government made clear their intention that biodiversity action plans should be integrated into community strategies which would be established by the Local Government Act. That at least is something. But there is an inescapable major responsibility for all government departments and public bodies, and especially for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, to give a consistent lead if the accelerating and grievous loss of biodiversity in this country is to be reversed. Amendment No. 518 seeks to provide the belt and braces to ensure that that happens.

Lord Walpole: Perhaps I can follow on from Friday afternoon when I spoke on the same subject. In my closing remarks I said that it was obvious from the debate that everyone was behind what we were saying. Everyone, irrespective of party, knew what they wanted to achieve. The differences arose on the question of how it was to be achieved. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Moran, I strongly support this amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We on these Benches strongly support the idea of this amendment. We want more comprehensive protection and encouragement of our wildlife. Although we commend the Government on bringing forward Part III--in our view, it is long overdue legislation--they should not believe that they have fulfilled their obligation to wildlife. The Biodiversity Action Plan must be statutorily underpinned now because it is likely to be a long time before we can cover this matter in other legislation.
	If this Bill is not amended, SSSIs will be patches in a cloth of desolation. We have seen what has happened in the rest of the country, and the habitats and species which have suffered considerably over the past 20 years will continue to suffer. Wildlife habitats have been destroyed, damaged, covered by tarmac, sprayed and have suffered from fertiliser and its run-off into water courses. Habitats have been "tidied up" until only a few inaccessible corners are left. Sometimes lack of grazing and scrub control destroy an ecosystem; sometimes overgrazing does the same.
	When one considers the reasons I outlined for habitat destruction or neglect, it is easy to see that the fault lies in the hands of many organisations and individuals. Of course, the answer is in the hands of farmers and landowners with regard to how they farm; but it lies also in the hands of MAFF, which decides which agri-environment schemes to implement and how to apply them. For example, MAFF recently came to the strange conclusion that the recently revised hill farm allowance should continue with stocking rates as they were, thus perpetuating overgrazing, but gave no thought to an allowance for hill farmers, who may have substantial amounts of land which will become open access land, thus encouraging less stock. Responsibility must lie also with the previous government, who took up a small amount of the European money available for wider rural and agri-environment schemes.
	One of the attractive parts of Amendment No. 518 is Clause 4, which would give all government departments a responsibility which they currently do not have. Habitat destruction can lie also in the hands of planning authorities which fail to pay sufficient attention to the overall impact of 10 or 20 years' development. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to local authorities. Where there is no statutory obligation, some may give biodiversity action plans lower priority, although some authorities are to be commended on the effort and resources they put in to those plans. However, planning gain money has often been directed into road building although only a tiny amount is needed to create a copse, a pond or a reed bed.
	We firmly believe that the Biodiversity Action Plan should have statutory underpinning and that that should mean redirecting money to where the fine words are. But it should not always be a question of money and that is where we may part company with the Conservative Benches, depending on the noble Baroness's reply. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, when speaking to her Amendment No. 458A, seemed to want more money for landowners. That seemed to be the bottom line of that amendment. She said that a requirement on an owner to improve or restore land to a level above its original state would be unreasonable without some financial support. However, under Amendment No. 518 that is what we would be expecting every agency and individual to do: to improve and enhance. Surely we will not be able to pay all those who may be involved. Creating a habitat which supports biodiversity and a commercial operation is not just a question of money.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may give the Committee a brief example of that. Last week in Somerset I visited the winner of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group award; Home Farm, Curry Rivel. It is a family-run farm, mainly arable, of about 1,000 acres. It is a model in terms of "enhancing" what it has. It grows its hedges wider and thicker, has widened its field margins, restored its traditional orchards, managed its woodland and much more. Several key species are already benefiting from that.
	The interesting point was that its reliance on environmental payments was less than 1 per cent of its turnover and it sees that as set to decrease, although it sees its enhancing work as set to continue and increase. What it needed and had was imagination and commitment. The same kind of commitment to biodiversity which the farm shows at a local level is needed more at a national level from every part of government.
	I hope that on Report the Government will come forward with an amendment which can fulfil such a commitment to Biodiversity Action Plan. Their response to Recommendation 21 of the excellent biodiversity report was weak. They raised no substantial points which would prevent them coming forward with an amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Renton: I warmly support the substance of the amendment but feel bound to point out that it is an unusual method of statutory drafting. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
	Subsection (2)(b) provides that the criteria which must be applied in determining the species and habitats of conservation and the priority species and habitats of conservation are to be judged under the existing Biodiversity Action Plan regime. That is referred to in subsection (6), which informs us that the regime is set out in three steering group reports.
	In effect, we shall be making the conclusions of those steering groups part of our statutory plan. It may be that in unusual circumstances that can be justified, but it is unusual. If there is a more conventional way of achieving that when the new clause has been accepted, as I hope that it will be by all sides of the Committee, we should on Report consider whether any necessary drafting needs to be done in order to make it plain what is being applied by statute. I say no more for the moment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Lord Hardy of Wath: Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and my noble friend Lord Judd, I trust that the Government will take a helpful view and bring forward helpful proposals on Report. I make that point because this approach will determine whether the Bill is seen later this century as a landmark provision.
	There is a great deal to be said for the amendment and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. However, I must point out that it is a logical step in the ladder of conservation measures which Parliament has approved during the past 20 or 30 years. In 1976, I took legislation on the conservation of wild creatures and wild plants through the other place. That established a scientific basis for the protection of endangered species. The decision whether a species was to survive or not did not rest on a value judgment made by individuals but on the basis of scientific assessment by the then Nature Conservancy Council. The then government were extremely helpful in ensuring that that Private Member's Bill succeeded.
	We then witnessed a bipartisan approach to some of the international efforts towards furthering the cause of conservation. I was fortunate to be rapporteur and chairman of the Council of Europe Committee which took action leading to the Berne Convention on Wildlife and Habitat. Both the then government and opposition were consistent in their approach to that instrument.
	There have been numerous other such provisions during the past 10 years. The earlier measures were consolidated into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was regarded as being of great importance, but even that Act had loopholes. From time to time, Members on both sides in both Houses in Westminster took initiatives to try to block or remedy those provisions. I believe that on balance those responsible for the 1981 Act would rather that the loopholes had been avoided in the first place. I hope that that approach will apply to this measure and that in a couple of years we shall not regret that we did not go a little further.
	I want to see the Bill regarded as a major piece of legislation which will ensure that the great decline in recent years in the variety and wealth of the British natural heritage is not only halted but reversed. That cannot happen unless the biodiversity programmes proceed. If they are to proceed effectively, those involved must accept that the Government will be consistent in their approach. One accepts that some costs will be involved, but I do not believe that anyone will suggest that they will be colossal.
	The lives of many hundreds of thousands of people will be diminished if they do not have the opportunity to enjoy our natural heritage. It is under threat, but I hope that on Report the Government will ensure that people can plainly see that that threat is to be reduced and that the Bill will be regarded as of enormous historic importance.

Earl Peel: I, too, support my noble friend's amendment in principle. I begin by declaring an interest as president of the Game Conservancy Trust, which is joint lead agency for three biodiversity action species; the great partridge, the brown hare and the crayfish. It is an extraordinary mixture, but I shall not go into how it came about.
	There is no doubt that since the Government signed up to the Rio Convention on Biodiversity in 1992, Britain has had a new conservation agenda, in principle at least. But there is a world of difference between principle and reality.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, rightly referred to the 1981 Act. It is easy to look back with hindsight and say that mistakes were made here and there. Although the 1981 Act has, by and large, served us extremely well, it is now 20 years old and is beginning to show its inadequacies. There is a need to move away from what might be described as the single principle of protection and to embrace the greater responsibility--which it certainly is--of positive management, because that is real conservation. English Nature has begun to embrace that with its positive moves towards the wildlife enhancement scheme. That is a step in the right direction towards the whole concept of biodiversity.
	If one turns to page 14 of the Countryside Agency's publication The state of the countryside 2000 one sees a graph which shows how various species have fared since the introduction of the 1981 Act. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to farmland birds. It is clear from the graph that since 1981 farmland birds have declined at an astonishing rate. This indicates that not only is the 1981 Act inadequate in some respects but, above all, that the protection of species or habitat per se is not enough. Positive management is required if we are to achieve the objectives of biodiversity. One basic problem is that the various agri-environment schemes, welcome though they are, must continually compete with the underlying inadequacies of the common agricultural policy. The provisions of biodiversity action plans with statutory backing will help everyone to focus their minds on the need for positive management to achieve the objectives.
	I should like to put a question to the Minister. I do not suggest that the noble Lord is in a position to give a comprehensive answer tonight. One wonders about the clash between the biodiversity action plan and the common agricultural policy, and the extent to which the statutory backing of BAPs will help to motivate a fresh look at the whole way in which the CAP is administered. I appreciate only too well that that is a big undertaking.
	There is a real possibility that the implementation of biodiversity action plans will be a painful process. It may well uncover the reality that the present conservation schemes do not address many of the issues and that more positive solutions need to be undertaken. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said that there might be some financial implications. I believe that there will be very real financial implications. We look to the Minister to indicate how he sees this admirable objective being fully and properly financed.
	I welcome the proposals behind the amendment which will provide a real challenge to both the public and private sector, but I do not believe that without a degree of statutory backing biodiversity will succeed. It is a matter of crossing our fingers and being realistic. We shall not achieve everything. I suspect that without reform of the CAP and real money a good deal of what we all hope for will not come about.

The Earl of Selborne: In the early 1990s I chaired the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which had responsibility for advising governments on their response to the biodiversity convention to which not only the United Kingdom but the European Union are signatories. The biodiversity action plan regime was the product of discussions with a wide number of organisations that contributed to it. The success of biodiversity action plans has been due very much to partnerships between statutory nature conservation organisations, land managers, education, local authorities and other interests.
	Whether this amendment will add value must depend ultimately on a greater number of biodiversity action plans being delivered and owned by those who seek to implement them. I support the amendment because I believe that on balance that will be the outcome. There is enormous amount of enthusiasm at grass roots for biodiversity action plans. The failure of the National Assembly for Wales to fund CCW adequately must be a grave discouragement to those local organisations which find themselves without the support they might have expected from CCW. However, when one gives new statutory responsibilities to the Department of the Environment, or the Secretary of State for Wales, there is always a danger that those powers will be passed down the line and impact in ways that are less than helpful on those on whose goodwill one entirely relies. That concern was expressed in another place. On balance, I am not too concerned. However, I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee of a willingness to recognise that biodiversity action plans, with or without statutory underpinning, will work only with the goodwill of all the stakeholders involved.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am heartened to hear the degree of support from all sides of the Committee for statutory underpinning of the process of conservation and action on biodiversity. That process has been going on for almost 10 years. It is the product of collaboration among many interests. That is one of its major benefits. One understands, however, why the Government may be unhappy about the amendment because of the degree of flexibility that may result. It would be unfortunate if only the range of species and targets currently described in the biodiversity action plan could be taken forward. I would be concerned if the intent, or the outcome, of the amendment focused attention only on government and not on partnership in the biodiversity action plan.
	I would also be extremely concerned if some of the current actions were the only ones to have a statutory basis. The plan will take many years to implement and over time the appropriate range of actions to conserve particular species and habitats will alter. It is important to have an amendment that has a degree of flexibility but still gives the process of biodiversity action statutory underpinning. Therefore, if this amendment is not accepted I hope that the Government, persuaded by general support for the principle which has been demonstrated today, will table another amendment. I believe that such an amendment would need to contain a number of minimum criteria. First, it would need to place a duty on government to define species and habitat priorities, and targets for those priorities, based on analyses of conservation concern. Secondly, it would need to place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to take measures to conserve those species and habitats. The third criterion, referred to by many Members of the Committee--for me it is the bottom line--is to enshrine a duty on all government departments to secure or further the implementation of measures to meet biodiversity priorities.
	One cannot overstate the importance of departments, other than the Department of the Environment, delivering some of the action for biodiversity which this Bill will not provide through special sites. About 40 per cent of the targets in the biodiversity action plan cannot be delivered through the measures to conserve special sites. Therefore, the role of MAFF, the National Assembly for Wales, the Treasury and the DTI--joined-up government (to use that dreadful expression)--is of fundamental importance. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the clear view that has been evinced in Committee that there needs to be a statutory underpinning for biodiversity action, and that the amendment will require all government departments to join in that action equally. I think that at Report stage, if we are not able to have that degree of assurance, the view of the House will have to be tested.

Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may briefly support the spirit of Amendment No. 518, although I recognise that some of the detail may need to be altered. On all sides of the Chamber--indeed, it is scarcely possible to argue--there is concern that there has been, and continues to be, the most alarming loss of biodiversity. At present the Bill misses an opportunity to do something for areas that are not sites of special scientific interest, which represent, as I understand it, only about six per cent of the countryside. The Bill could be made to do rather more for the general well-being of the countryside in general and its wildlife in a much wider area.
	The reality is that it will be volunteers such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, volunteer money raised in all kinds of ways, and it will be private money as well as specifically that provided by farmers, landowners and indeed through country sports interests which funds biodiversity. Country sports interests should not be forgotten because much of the small woodland in this country is managed for biodiversity by hunts. Large tracts of the wetlands of this country are managed by wildfowling and shooting organisations. Indeed, much of the small woodland planting that has taken place in the last 50 years has been done purely because it has a benefit which is additional to biodiversity.
	All those parties have put money in, and will have to continue to put money in if we are to arrest the alarming loss of biodiversity. To leave government out of that partnership would be a missed opportunity. As we all know, when there is no statutory obligation things slip down the list of priorities of governments, particularly when resources are limited--as they always are--or when political priorities change.
	Conservation has currently caught the imagination of the public. It was not always so and it may not always be so in the future. When the enthusiasm and the publicity dies down, the job will still have to be done. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone spoke of joined-up government. I hope the Minister will not say that that will be dealt with elsewhere in another Bill, perhaps a local government Bill. It is surely vital if we are, for example, to tackle the necessary reforms to the CAP--to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred--that every relevant government department combines in the mammoth task of reversing deterioration which has been going on now for a very long time. Without some statutory obligation, it is hard to see how the responsibility which must be shared by a number of relevant government departments can be achieved. I hope the Minister feels that a place can be found in the Bill for an amendment which does what this amendment seeks to achieve.

Lord Marlesford: I rise briefly to support the amendment. I should like to point out one thing. For 50 or 70 years we have been fighting the tide of destruction of the biodiversity of our countryside, and indeed our countryside itself. We are now, I hope, moving towards a period of enhancement, clawing back and advancing. The amendment seeks to do that.
	There is one very important point which has not been mentioned. That is the timing of this initiative, indeed the timing of the Bill. It is happening at what I fear is only the beginning of what is probably a very long-term decline in agriculture. That means the income of agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to some prices she was given for her excellent stewardship. I am quite sure there are many occupiers of land who perceive themselves, apart from anything else, as being stewards of the countryside and its biodiversity. But the cash supply for that has fallen alarmingly. Even the "Today" programme last week led on the fact that farming incomes have fallen by 90 per cent in the past four years.
	The figures behind that fall are simple. The price of milk to producers over the past four years has fallen by one-third. The price of wheat has halved and is now back, in real terms, adjusting both for inflation and production--three and a half times the production of the 1930s--to its price in the 1930s. The price of oil seed rape--a more modern crop--has fallen by two-thirds. The fact is there will be far less cash available to do what we all want. That is why the Bill is very opportune. I hope very much that that opportunity will be taken and that it will be recognised that there are costs involved. They are costs which I believe the people of this country, indeed the wider world, would wish to see met.

Lord Whitty: I cannot but note the widespread support for doing something along the lines of this amendment. It is support which is evident here tonight and was expressed in the debate on the Select Committee report introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, on Friday.
	I think that everyone recognises that biodiversity action plans are an essential element of our policy, and in particular the implementation of the convention on biological diversity. It is a very strong commitment by the Government. We have given assurances already to make sure that the statutory guidance under the Local Government Act make it clear that biodiversity is an important element in delivering the new obligations on the community strategies.
	We indicated in a previous debate some reservations about the need for legislation to underpin this policy, given the other commitments that the Government have made. Perhaps I may turn to the individual points of the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in one sense we are actually writing into statute the provisions of what are 400 or more different species and habitat action plans. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, we could be wedding ourselves inflexibly to that in statute. Therefore, there are some problems in the way the amendment is drafted. There is a need for greater flexibility. I shall take into account what my noble friend Lady Young says. I take the point that there needs to be partnership here, but also the Government need to be clear what they are actually committing themselves to.
	However, I recognise that there is a need for some statutory entrenchment here. There is overwhelming support in the Chamber for something along those lines. While I have some reservations about the exact nature of the amendment, I will undertake to look at it again and consult with colleagues, with the intention of tabling an amendment at Report. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I am most grateful to the Minister and delighted that he will look at this again. I realise the drafting of the amendment is perhaps not ideal. It was a stab at a very important issue.
	Perhaps I may highlight a few points. As agriculture spokesman, I was trying not to make a speech on agriculture. Agriculture plays an important part in conservation. This cannot be looked at merely as a simple issue of conservation within our designated areas.
	I agree with the comments made about the need to look again at the reform of the CAP and at the very many schemes to which landowners are trying to work. The point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford is, sadly, very true. The average farm income last year was £8,000--£160 a week. I am not making a party political point, but in the past it was predominantly the land managers who carried out a great deal of conservation work on their land. They are now finding it difficult to continue with that work, so any help the Government can give will be important.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked how I could add my name to Amendment No. 518 when I did not have my name to an earlier amendment dealing with the enhancement side. Perhaps I may deal with that point. If a land manager or owner has on his land an SSSI that has been damaged, it is acceptable that he should be required to return it to its previous state. However, some of the amendments with which we were dealing at that stage referred to "enhancement". If someone is expected to enhance something that he has not previously been expected to enhance, financial support should be available for that. That is what I said on that occasion. If I did not make myself clear, I am happy to restate it today because it is important.
	I know that time is running on and that we have much to do but I should like to thank other noble Lords for their contributions. Each of them came forward with relevant views on what would be a suitable amendment. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on those views.
	Finally, perhaps I may say clearly, if I did not say it at the beginning of my remarks, that the essential ingredient for the success of what we propose is that it should be reflected across all government departments. It is not a question of it being only a MAFF or DETR issue; it is one that should be reflected across all government departments and local authorities.
	I am sorry that I have not done justice to the contributions of all noble Lords. There were so many and they are all important. Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because it takes us back to where we started from. We are all stakeholders, whether as individuals or as members of groups. This is a wonderful opportunity to put such a provision into the Bill. I accept that my amendment is probably not perfect and I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take it away, think about it and come back at Report stage with something that is perhaps more suitable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.32 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Prison Education

The Earl of Longford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the education currently provided in prisons.
	My Lords, in effect, I am asking the Minister whether he will be able to tell us that the Government will give considerably more support to education in prisons than anyone has given until now. I am pleased that so many noble Lords are to take part in the debate but I am afraid it means that they will have only a few minutes in which to speak. Therefore, we all know that they will have to compress their thoughts very severely.
	I hope that other noble Lords will not be upset if I mention only two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is to follow me, is in a kind of sense my religious rector. I go to a prayer group presided over by him from which I and many others draw much inspiration. Later on, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will make his maiden speech. The noble Lord comes from the great house of Faber. When I think of Faber, I think of T S Eliot; and when I think of T S Eliot I think of the honour he did my wife and me in asking us to accompany him, after his second marriage, on a visit to Buckingham Palace. My memory is not very strong, but did he write something about violets from the waste land or violets from the dead land? At any rate, I am sure that we shall have a violet from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. I am sure, too, that it would be disrespectful to his party to suggest that he comes from a waste land or a dead land, whatever it may be.
	I shall come to the point very quickly because I have only a few minutes. I hope that I shall not take up my full 10 minutes. Every noble Lord present, including the Minister of course, would wish to pay tribute to those who dedicate themselves to prison education at all levels, including the prisoners themselves and those who teach them. I am sure that we would want at least that to go on record. I should like to put to the Minister two questions, of which I have given notice, with which he may or may not have time to deal. The second question will, I think, be expanded on by another, more gifted speaker.
	Does the Minister agree that Christianity should play the same part in integration in prisons as it does to a limited extent--but, still, it plays a part to some extent--in the ordinary education system of the country? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied with the present arrangements under which, as I understand them, the decision as to how much money is actually spent on prison education out of the budget governors receive depends on the governors? As a result, it may not be very much. Everyone is well aware of that. The amount of education in prison depends very much on the--I shall not say "whim" of the governor--opinion of the governor.
	I come to my main point. I bring forward three convictions which may or may not be shared by others. First, as a loyal member of the Labour Party for 64 years, I am delighted with the general record of the Government. I refer particularly to their record in Northern Ireland but also to their record in many other areas. Therefore, I speak today as a Labour loyalist. But, secondly, I am not at all happy with the Government's record on penal matters. It is very disappointing. I sympathise with the Home Secretary, who is stuck with a commitment to be tough towards crime. He has a difficult task. I am well aware that my old friend Evelyn Waugh, the famous writer, once said of me that he was glad that I was not Home Secretary because we would all have been murdered in our beds. So I realise that the Home Secretary cannot just be a straightforward penal reformer. He has to combine that with commanding the confidence of the public. Nevertheless, by the standards of anyone who goes into prison, the Government's record on penal matters is not at all good.
	If people go into prison, as I have done every week during the period of office of the present Government, they will find no different atmosphere from the one that existed during the bad old days before Labour came in. That is a fact. No one can find any difference. There have been improvements. Tagging is an excellent advance. On the other hand, it looks as though the prison population will increase considerably under government policies. So I am not at all happy with the Government's penal record. However, I have a great deal of respect for the Home Secretary. He is a good Christian socialist and he has shown considerable sympathy for former prisoners--he wrote an introduction to a book by a man who had been in prison for many years. However, I remain hopeful but not overoptimistic at the moment.
	If I may come back to prison education, I withdraw my criticism because I do not think one can say whether at this point the record is good or bad. The amount spent on prison education has increased considerably, in particular over the past year. That gives us hope for the future. However, one must look closely at these increases. Spending on education in prisons now runs at £41 million a year. That figure is a good deal higher than it was in the bad old days of the former Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, and, in the era that we associate with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, a colleague in this House, the amount spent on prisoners' education was £29 million. An increase of £12 million sounds acceptable, but one must realise that the prison population has grown by more than 50 per cent over the same period. Indeed, the population continues to increase. If one also allows for inflation and increases in the cost of living, it is clear that an individual prisoner is not as well off in terms of his education today as he was in the days of the more enlightened Tory government.
	That cannot be satisfactory to Labour supporters like myself. We believe ourselves to be more humane and understanding towards those in trouble. Prisoners are certainly in trouble, for all that they may have brought it on themselves. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Government are happy with the current situation. I understand that plans are in place to increase the funding and I trust that the Minister will take the opportunity afforded by our debate this evening to offer some encouraging words. I hope that he will do so.
	Prisoners vary widely both educationally and intellectually. A high proportion of prisoners are semi-literate and their needs are perhaps the most urgent. On the other hand, I am visiting two prisoners at the present time who are both serving long sentences. One is reading for three university degrees, two of those in theology. Another is a doctor of divinity and a doctor of psychology. Because of these variations, there is no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to cater properly for all prisoners.
	I hope and believe that, whatever is argued about penal policy in general--no doubt we shall have many more debates on the subject--all would agree that education in prisons is of vital importance. I believe that the Minister's heart is in the right place, and that the same is true of the Home Secretary. I hope that, when the Minister comes to wind up the debate, he will prove me right in that statement.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I am indebted, as is the whole House, to the noble Earl, and my noble friend, Lord Longford. He has reached an age where any noble Lord may be called his friend, regardless of party. I do not recognise myself as his spiritual director--

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I say that the noble Lord was my spiritual rector, rather than director.

Lord Elton: My Lords, that leaves me puzzled as to my role, but I am sure that it is far beyond my capacity.
	One cannot cover a whole subject in a four-minute speech. One must necessarily be critical because it is only through criticism that one sees any improvement. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do no more than mention the good work being undertaken at Wetherby and Pentonville, highlighted in the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
	In my view, if a prison sentence does not prevent an offender from reoffending, it has failed in its principal purpose. A principal motive for reoffending is lack of income. A principal reason for lack of income is lack of employment and a principal reason for lack of employment is lack of basic skills. A report from the Basic Skills Agency points out that people with entry level skills in reading and writing have access to only one in 50 intermediate and lower level jobs. Even at level 1, access is limited to one in 25 jobs. Table 7.4 in the Home Office Prison Statistics for 1999 shows that 49.8 per cent of 97,000 prisoners screened were at or below level 1 for reading, 65.6 per cent were at or below level 1 for numeracy and a staggering 81 per cent were at or below level 1 for writing. Even the best of them, therefore, had access to only one in 25 of the job opportunities available to them.
	The implications of this are horrendous for the prospects of such people. Because the noble Lord who introduced this debate struck a religious note, I think that it is worth saying that every one of those prisoners about whom we are speaking is worth, in absolute terms, every bit as much as any noble Lord here in this Chamber and should be as much a burden on our consciences.
	For those reasons, we have a duty to try dramatically to improve this slowly improving service. I was disturbed, therefore, to read in the report of the chief inspector that, in many cases, assessment of the basic requirements of prisoners entering institutions is repeated in every prison. I have spoken to a director of a college of further education which supplies education provision to 13 different prisons. I was told anecdotally that, quite often, a receiving prison education officer, when he receives an assessment, will declare it to be rubbish and undertake the same task again. The chief inspector stated that,
	"the largest number of basic tests through which any prisoner has told me that he had been put is eleven, after which no education followed".
	If that situation is to be changed, we need to introduce a form of standardisation to such assessments. Furthermore, the educational assessment must follow the prisoner through the system as he moves from one institution to another.
	A great deal more needs to be said on this subject, but if we are to attain the standards the Government wish to see, they will be of no use unless they are repeated in each prison that the prisoner attends, otherwise the good original work will be lost. That is a disaster for the individual concerned.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this important issue to your Lordships' House and also to thank him for his kind words about me during his opening remarks. I wish also to thank those on all sides of the House who have been so helpful to me during my first few months here. In particular I should like to thank the staff who have gone out of their way to educate and guide me, no one more so than Mr Alan Dobson, whose patience I have tried with numerous questions. Finally, I should like to thank my mentor, my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has been extraordinarily helpful.
	There are perhaps 30 people in gaol in Britain who will never be released. The rest--the vast majority--will return to society once they have finished their sentences. It is essential that they come back into society with some benefit. Education is the best benefit we can give them, as well as being one of the most powerful weapons we have to aid rehabilitation and to stop reoffending.
	This Government have put education at the centre of their plans, in particular education for the deprived to combat social exclusion and widespread literacy problems. They are also giving priority to skilling and reskilling the workforce as we aim for full employment. We see, therefore, that government ambitions in education relate precisely to prison life and prisoners' needs. Many offenders are technically illiterate and need help with those things in life that we take for granted.
	Last week, a writer-in-residence at one of our prisons told me this:
	"Being inside obliges you to spend enormous uninterrupted periods of time with the last person you expected to--yourself. The brain churns away with no distractions so the impulse to put what you feel into words becomes overwhelming".
	He went on to say:
	"Outside the literate man is worth little but inside he is King. Everything inside happens as a result of the written word--letters to loved ones, appeals to the Governors, appeals to court etc. Everyone therefore has to beef up their word store and the libraries are where they go to for that. Then something else kicks in and books become a source of comfort, a consolation, something both life-enhancing and empowering".
	The writer concluded,
	"Libraries provide access to words".
	The prison library is of course the driver for education in prisons, with librarians working closely with prison education officers in all of our 143 prisons. The prison library duplicates the service provided by libraries and librarians outside: help with social security benefits, legal work, dealing with the ombudsman and, of course, access to the store of books to read and learn from.
	They look also to wider objectives for education in prison: to ease the prisoner's rehabilitation into society, to help with breaking patterns of behaviour or lifestyle, to offer a broader vocabulary for greater social mobility and to expand horizons. Lifelong learning may have its own meaning in prison, but it is as vitally important if you are inside gaol as it is on the outside--perhaps even more so.
	Apart from the Government, many organisations provide brilliant education-based programmes in prisons, far too many for me to talk about in a short speech, but I shall briefly describe one. The Dulwich Picture Gallery works in Wandsworth prison; its artistic and specialist teachers take large laminated reproductions of old masters from the gallery and teach the prisoners art. The prisoners are extremely grateful for this service because it is given in addition to the five hours a week allocated for education in Wandsworth.
	In conclusion, I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Joined up government has been mentioned. Our hopes and ambitions for greater and more effective prisoner education will only be realised if funds are available and if the two government departments closely involved in this aspect of prison life, the Home Office and DfEE, work in a joined-up manner, in perfect harmony, to bring into the prisons the huge commitment and impetus that we see quite rightly directed at those in need of help in the community at large.

Lord Addington: My Lords, it is my duty and my privilege to thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on behalf of the whole House for an excellent maiden speech. It is customary to say nice words, but I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord's sentiments and applaud his delivery. I notice from the noble Lord's CV a frighteningly impressive career in public service and the arts; he is also a distinguished publisher. I feel that he will make many contributions in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord is a founder member and a director of the Groucho Club. As your Lordships' House goes through a period of change, I wonder what insights he will be able to give us.
	So far, little disagreement has arisen in the debate because, as we have established, the prison education system is in something of a mess. In the most recent report by the prison inspectorate there appears the heading, "Education and Work--a study in Inconsistency". We have already heard how a large number of people who fail have problems with basic literacy and numeracy skills. Another alarming factor is that up to 50 per cent of the prison population may be suffering from dyslexia. This is a problem requiring help from people with specific training and an understanding of its diagnosis. They must be able to explain the nature of dyslexia before those who suffer from it can even start to access the service.
	This is not the first time I have raised this subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a very warm reception to the work being carried out by the Dyspel project based at Pentonville. We should hear more about this work because the follow-up figures show that the reoffending rate of a group which went through the process fell to 10 per cent from the normal 55 per cent.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says that we must try to help people to get out of the cycle of reoffending. I agree that most prisoners are inspired by economic need or the perception of need. Here we have an opportunity to help a group who, because of their lack of literacy skills as a result of a specific problem, are incapable of finding work in a normal situation. If the problem can be identified when prisoners first enter prison, surely the prison system is an ideal opportunity to help them to build up self-esteem. Many of these people have written themselves off as stupid no-hopers and have had very traumatic educational careers in the school system. If we can give them a chance to find work, it may get them out of the cycle of offending. I suggest that the Government should be working towards that end.
	I look forward to hearing any constructive suggestions the Minister might have. Can he give the House guidance as to where the education service fits into the prison system? I do not have the time to go into details, but education seems to be stuck on the end of the prison system. In terms of priority it seems to come behind the rapid movement of prisoners, visiting hours and drug testing. That does not help anyone.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this topic. It is an important issue and his dedication to this cause is widely respected. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans on his stimulating maiden speech, with which I fully empathise.
	I shall address just one area--that is the importance of health education in prisons, particularly for young offenders. I shall refer to government initiatives and to a specific intervention aimed at young fathers in prison.
	By health education I do not mean simply physical health but include social and emotional health. A key aspect of health education is the encouragement of self-esteem and relationship skills, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Both are surely of key importance in prisons. We are all concerned about the impact of education, of whatever kind, on prisoners. If one of the aims is, as the World Health Organisation report, Mental Health in Prisons, states,
	"motivating and assisting prisoners to re-enter society",
	we do not seem to be doing very well at it according to recent research.
	The majority of prisoners on release tend to re-offend. Maybe, just maybe, with greater emphasis on developing self-esteem and relationship skills in a consistent and continuous way we might improve the situation. But it demands a whole prison approach.
	This is a real challenge. High numbers of offenders come from deprived sectors of society. Up to 90 per cent have a problem with substance misuse, personality disorder or poor mental health. If we are concerned about inequalities in health, then surely prisons must be targeted. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has encouraged institutional promotion of health, but it appears that this is being pursued only in a small number of prisons.
	Two units within the Department of Health have been set up to improve health care in prisons and to promote health. This will mean closer working relationships between the NHS and the Prison Service; prison governors and their local health authorities will have to carry out needs assessments and integrate plans into local health improvement programmes. It should mean more emphasis on health promotion, clearer aims and objectives and more guidance for staff. All this is excellent.
	However, I want to illustrate the problems associated with any educational programme by referring to a piece of research done by the Trust for the Study of Adolescence. I declare an interest as a trustee. The research relates to a parenting education programme for young fathers--a third of young men in prisons are fathers. The course was based on the Prison Service social and life skills module, involving relationship skills; it is not merely about nappy-changing. The majority of young men who took the course thought it the most useful activity that they had undertaken while in custody. It seems clear that such schemes are of benefit, but they are not adequate in themselves. Intensive reinforcement and support need to be investigated. If we are to tackle cycles of reoffending, health education, with its central focus on improving self-esteem and social skills must be mandatory in all prisons. We should be asking whether it is.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, the Government's response to the noble Earl's Question cannot be other than "No", as indeed Ministers have repeatedly made clear. For example, on 15th December 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in reply to a Question from me:
	"The present story is lamentable. Of all prisoners, 67 per cent. are below or at level one in numeracy ... and of young offenders and juveniles ... 82.4 per cent. do not get above level one".--[Official Report, 15/12/98; col. 1229.]
	Things have not improved since then, to judge from Sir David Ramsbotham's most recent reports. Rather, in some significant respects they have grown worse, with classes cut, workshops unused, few establishments now offering NVQs or other qualifications, and 60 per cent falling way below even the old target for hours in education.
	Not that such deterioration can be seen as a falling away from a golden age. Successive governments have faced adverse criticism from successive chief inspectors ever since the job was invented in 1981. And the need for urgent action grows by the year, with a sound education ever more essential as the "knowledge economy" replaces unskilled and manual work. And of course, our prison population keeps on growing. When I was a boy, it was 12,000. Now it is over 65,000, and still rising.
	Though these numbers include a worrying increase in women prisoners, the vast majority are young males, disproportionately from troubled backgrounds and with next to no schooling. They (and their fellows not yet caught) have an equally disproportionate capacity to inflict social harm and misery. Our best hope of enabling them to turn from crime and lead an honest, productive life is to provide them with the education they missed.
	There are brightish spots here and there, as several noble Lords have mentioned: at Pentonville, for example, at Kirklevington Grange; at Portland Young Offenders Institution, one engineering programme enabled 19 out of a class of 24 to gain full NVQs. There have been successes even among the hardened at CSCs such as one prisoner getting a GCSE in law, no less. And I myself talked to a young man in Brixton who was just completing an OU degree.
	Such bright spots are few and far between. Despite the universal view among bien-pensants that, "Time in prison is a priceless opportunity for education", it is hard to avoid the feeling that the Prison Service itself has a stubborn culture of belittling education and training. We are told of education staff believing that "their contribution was viewed by other staff as a 'regime filler'", and there is evidence, sadly, that this view is so widespread as to seem endemic.
	I do not underestimate the difficulties. These young men and boys are not en masse very loveable--though Kirklevington shows what can be done with something resembling love. But things must change. There must be better, fuller, quicker, more rational records of individual education needs. There must be better allocation of present resources. What can justify discrepancies on annual education spend from £2,300 at Thorn Cross to £304 at Featherstone? Why should a place at a young offenders institution at Stoke Heath cost £15,000 a year while one at YOI Reading costs £27,000--a difference of 80 per cent? And while there is need for more money in aggregate, much can be done without more money: for example, through greater involvement of organisations like SOVA (the Society of Voluntary Associates).
	Finally, while I respect the reasons for the current concentration on basic literacy and numeracy, young people--disaffected young males in particular--need active motivation to understand that these skills matter. And such motivation often comes from practical activity in workshops and from classes in art, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, reminded us, in history, archaeology, music--the very things that have been cut back to help the basics drive.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Longford for again giving us the opportunity to discuss this vital subject. My noble friend's lifelong commitment on these issues is a challenge to all of us.
	I should like also to add my appreciation for an outstanding maiden speech to my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting. The sensitivity with which he spoke was very special. We look forward to hearing him on many other occasions.
	In 1996, the education core curriculum for all prisoners was introduced. It contains three essential elements: basic skills; information technology; and social and life skills. Beyond this, the curriculum is up to individual prisons and is expected to be based on a careful assessment of the needs of prisoners at each prison. The curriculum should range from academic to vocational qualifications. The underlying objective is to assist lower achieving prisoners, who represent the majority of the prison population. The importance of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, cannot be over-stated. A recent Basic Skills Agency survey found that 60 per cent of the prison population has literacy and numeracy levels which are so low that these prisoners are ineligible for 96 per cent of jobs.
	The question, therefore, is how far the policy is being delivered in practice. Are there sufficient resources for a rising prison population? Are the facilities adequate? Are there enough teachers and instructors? Equipment, not least IT equipment, without enough teachers and instructors to work with prisoners on its use is, frankly, a route to failure and a waste of all the public money spent on it.
	While there are evidently considerable variations between prisons and between types of prisoner, and while the provision is greater for women and young offenders and for those in open prisons, the sad truth seems to be that the average time spent in education and vocational skills training per prisoner per week in 1998-99 was a mere four hours.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to the observations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I find it interesting that in his 1997-98 annual report he said,
	"few prisoners have adequate induction interviews to diagnose their educational needs and inform them about what is on offer".
	Time is very short. Perhaps I can, therefore, be forgiven for summarising my own concerns in several specific questions. First, does my noble friend agree that rehabilitation must be a priority objective in sane penal policy? Secondly, if so, does he agree that adequate educational provision is an essential part of this? Thirdly, if he agrees with that proposition, what can he tell us about how the Government are going to provide the necessary financial and human resources? Fourthly, does he reaffirm that all prisoners should have an assessment of their education and training needs, and that education should be targeted and appropriate to such individual needs. Fifthly, what are the Government going to do to ensure that that happens without delay?
	The Howard League for Penal Reform, whose briefs I find extremely helpful on these matters, argues that prisoners undertaking education and training should receive equal pay to those who are working in order to enhance the status and attractiveness of education. Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Government's position is on that view?
	I should declare an interest at this point, as I am president of YMCA (England). At our annual general meeting this weekend I spoke to some of those responsible for our work in prisons. I told them about this debate. There was one point that they asked me to underline; namely, that it is their firm conviction, based on front-line experience, that if education and rehabilitation are to be effective, these must form part of a caring process, which starts in prison but which, at all costs, continues with the prisoners on release. Re-integration into outside society is perhaps the biggest challenge of all. It is cynical to leave that to chance. It also makes economic nonsense, leading to a greater likelihood of failure and re-offending. It will be good to hear that, in their desire to be seen as tough on crime, the Government recognise the imperative of this and are prepared to act accordingly.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this evening's debate. I did not think that I would be able to get here in time, so I am indeed very grateful for this opportunity to speak.
	Many years ago when I was chairman of the Television South Trust, we were approached by the authorities at Lewes gaol who wished to know whether we could finance a writer in residence for a year. We decided to do this, although it was quite expensive; indeed, I believe that it cost about £25,000, but that was a long time ago. We were very encouraged by the success of the project. There are many such enterprises in other prisons. I have received videos from a number of them which have shown me what progress has been made since our original grant.
	As we have heard from all sides of the House this evening, problems do exist in the prison system. However, I believe that we should build on the success that has been achieved thus far. I thank noble Lords for their attention.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this most interesting and important debate, which highlights how crucial the subject of education in prisons is. It is a subject which I feel merits more detailed debate than is possible tonight. I should also add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on his marvellous maiden speech.
	The problems faced by the prison services of the United Kingdom in meeting educational needs are indeed immense. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, one of the most telling statistics must be that 60 per cent of the prison population has literacy and numeracy levels so low as to make them ineligible for 96 per cent of jobs. A key weapon in reducing this huge figure is education--the principal means of rehabilitation and helping former prisoners back into work.
	The UK prison services are well aware of the problem. In England and Wales the requirement to provide an education core curriculum is specifically aimed at these low-achieving prisoners, with a laudable target of reducing this group by 15 per cent by 2002.
	I had the privilege of being closely involved in the founding of the Butler Trust in 1984, and I am a trustee. It highlights best practice through its awards, which have included many in education. It has identified remarkable work that has literally been life changing for the prisoners concerned.
	One education officer in Barlinnie was nominated by several prisoners, and, very unusually, by a prisoner's wife also. With the education officer's help, he started to write poetry to her as a way of expressing himself. She wrote:
	"I took a lot from that poetry and still do ... it led to us all being able to communicate more, to build and be positive about the future".
	That moving and telling voice is one that is rarely heard, but it encapsulates what education can do.
	We also identified a music tutor whose nominator wrote:
	"Most of her pupils have never played an instrument before, and certainly none could read music, yet an average of 30 pass Associated Board examinations every year. One particular prisoner was both difficult and illiterate but with her encouragement has learned to play the clarinet exceptionally well; this confidence has carried over into his other educational work with the result that he is now fully literate, has passed Grade V in both clarinet and music theory and has also become a much more trusted prisoner".
	Such initiatives are marvellous, but they are not unique. They demonstrate that the arts are central to the education process and to achievement in the core skills, not an add on.
	The investment in prisoner education with £10 million per annum allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review is greatly to be welcomed. The number of prisoners achieving accreditation in basic literacy and numeracy has risen. However, with devolved budgets, anything apart from the core curriculum is left up to individual governors. The result is that higher education and the arts are the casualties. This is both short sighted and wrong, for it cuts at their role at the heart of education and undervalues what education can and should do.
	In his latest annual report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons makes a key recommendation that,
	"the requirement for a structured needs assessment to be carried out on every prisoner should be written into education contracts which should be ring-fenced".
	I believe that that would make a real difference to the potential impact of education programmes.
	Now that money for drug treatment programmes is ring fenced, I hope that the Minister can give me reassurance in relation to education when he replies. If the Government remain true to their oft-repeated commitment to education, no area is more in need of a demonstration of such commitment than our prisons where we have seen its life-changing potential and where the need is so very great.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate, which was further enriched by the informed and sensitive maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. On matters connected with prisons, we on these Benches have not always been in agreement with the noble Earl. However, on this occasion we are at one with him in drawing attention to this important matter.
	It is wise for anyone, whether in government or in opposition, to be continually aware of the standard of prison education in other countries around the world. For example, in Hong Kong, education and training while in prison is the norm rather than the voluntary bolt-on which it has too often been regarded as in the United Kingdom. The proof of the pudding is in the very low level of re-offending by international standards that occurs in that territory.
	Where I believe that the Government can be criticised is on the hours devoted to purposeful activity, of which education is, of course, an important part. Under the present Government the average time spent per prisoner on purposeful activity has fallen. Although there has been an improvement in the past 12 months, the figure is not yet back to the levels achieved by the previous government. Equally, the funding level in real terms for prison education in 1998-99 was £1.5 million lower than in 1995-96, although the prison population rose during that period.
	It is the view of the Opposition that the provision of purposeful activity must be meaningfully and productively utilised. My right honourable friend Miss Ann Widdecombe has said:
	"We will move towards a full working day in all prisons based on self-financing workshops that take on real work which real employers want in the real world".
	I should add that real work requires real skills, which of course require education and training. The report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons for 1999-2000 takes up the same theme, drawing attention to the large amount of government work that is given to Federal prisons in the United States.
	In the short time available to me, perhaps I may say something about the role of the voluntary sector in prisons, to which the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, referred. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also made reference to it with the work of the YMCA, which is a leading organisation in this field. I am not in any way suggesting that voluntary organisations relieve the service of any obligations that properly belong to it, with the attendant budgetary implications, but rather I should like to remind your Lordships of the hugely influential and supportive roles that organisations play in the prison education regime. They range from correspondence courses on specialist subjects to participation as at the YOI at Thorncross in an impressive operation with the prison education and probation services, Operation Headstart, to give young offenders on discharge just that.
	Many of those organisations act as networkers for other voluntary resources and the arrangements between voluntary bodies and the Prison Service are frequently made at local prison level. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to that point, but such devolved arrangements for the voluntary sector are tried and tested. I understand that this form of co-operation is actively nurtured by the Prison Service. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can tell us more about it.
	All governments must resist the temptation to make the prison education service a financial Cinderella. It remains an absolutely crucial component in equipping the prisoner for a sound, fresh start and in minimising the chances of reoffending. Any appropriate initiatives produced by Her Majesty's Government will have the support of these Benches.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I also am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. It has been wide-ranging: all the contributions have been particularly telling in their unique and individual ways and none more so than that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who made the best speech of the evening. His speech was delivered with great insight and considerable passion. I am so impressed by the speech that I think we shall have to extend to the noble Lord an honorary position in advising the Prison Service on future education plans, particularly in regard to improving the quality of its libraries.
	The noble Lord made the following important point; namely, that education is the best benefit that we can give to those in our prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, made another simple but short point; that is, that the short answer to the Question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, must be no, in that we can never be satisfied with the education provided in our prisons. We must constantly aspire to improve it. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also made an important point when he placed the whole debate in the context of reducing reoffending when people leave prison.
	There have been significant developments in education for prisoners since the Government came to office. Lifelong learning--many noble Lords mentioned this--is very much at the heart of our policies, with the improvement of basic skills in the national labour force a high priority. However, while 20 per cent of adults nationally have poor basic skills, 60 per cent of the prison population have poor literacy and communication skills and 75 per cent are deficient in numeracy. As many noble Lords have noted, prisoners with such poor basic skills are denied access to some 90 per cent, if not more, of all jobs. This is a serious problem which the Government are determined to tackle. Only 12 per cent of prisoners who leave prison find a job on their release. We must do more to ensure that we tackle that problem. Education is absolutely the key to success there.
	Education policy in prisons therefore both reflects the priority the Government place on improving basic skills in the labour force and our aim to improve the employability of prisoners to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Research evidence suggests that properly targeted interventions can be effective in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The effective regimes study, for example, found that prisoners with educational needs at the start of their sentence who attended educational courses had reconviction rates of 32 per cent, compared with 40.5 per cent for those with educational needs who did not attend. That is a telling set of statistics.
	Basic and key skills training is therefore a priority for prison education. The Prison Service has been given a new target to reduce by 15 per cent by March 2000 the proportion of prisoners discharged at the end of their sentence with basic skills at or below Basic Skills Agency Level 1. The national target is undoubtedly testing but achievable. So far this year, some 1,569 full Level 2 qualifications in basic skills have been achieved. To support the national target, the Prison Service has set local targets based on discharges from establishments. Each establishment has been given a key performance target showing how many Level 2 accreditations it must achieve.
	The Prison Service allocated additional funding over three years to provide improved opportunities for prisoners to enhance their basic and key skills. But the Government are determined to do more. We are providing a further £18 million over the next three years under the Spending Review 2000. The Prison Service will work in partnership with education providers, other government departments and agencies to help more prisoners to achieve levels of basic skills sufficient to widen their access to training and employment.
	We are doing better in reaching prisoners who need to be engaged in learning but who may be reluctant to attend traditional classes. In addition to the money spent on educational contracts and library provision, we spent £18.3 million in 1999-2000 delivering 7.8 million hours of physical education. All physical education delivered during the core day has to be purposeful and part of the prisoner's sentence plan. These prisoners are likely to take part in focused PE programmes rather than leisure and recreational activity. Last year, prisoners gained 51,800 awards in PE, including NVQs, GCSEs and vocational qualifications. These qualifications are of real value, not just in raising self-esteem but in opening up employment opportunities, particularly in the leisure industry. But the Prison Service is also using PE to deliver basic skills learning and to support offending behaviour programmes. At Frankland Prison, education has been linked with PE through the delivery of key skills in the gymnasium.
	This innovative approach is being extended to catering, workshops and instructional officers. PE officers and wing officers are being trained to offer basic skills support. The Mount, Hindley, Wellingborough, Leeds and Styal Prisons and Feltham Youth Offender Institution are all about to take part in a new University for Industry Learn Direct prison pilot.
	Evaluating the use of new technologies in prison, promoting and improving basic skills through employment, gym, workshops, wing officers and education, are all examples of how we are creating a learning environment in our prisons. The Prison Service is also developing links with outside employment through welfare-to-work programmes which focus on vocational guidance, educational achievement in basic and work skills, preparation for work and links with New Deal advisers. A new custody to work unit is being established to increase the proportion of prisoners going into jobs or training on release. We are providing £21 million over three years--money which will go towards programmes which will complement the additional provision for education and vocational training. The unit will establish links with other agencies and will work closely with the Social Exclusion Unit on its study into the reintegration of ex-prisoners.
	All these initiatives and more are necessary if we are to reach the high aspirations that the Government have for improving education within the Prison Service and for ensuring that people leaving prison have a real opportunity and choice to change their previous chosen career of offending.
	Many questions covering a wide range of subjects were asked during the course of the debate. I apologise in that I shall not be able to answer all of them but I shall attempt to answer some. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked three questions. He asked whether I believed that Christianity had a part to play in prison education. I believe that it has but I also believe that we must also recognise other faiths. It is of course the case that Islam, Buddhism and many other religions are catered for within the prison system. The noble Earl also asked whether I was satisfied with the money that was spent on prison education as it is devolved to prison governors. One can never be entirely satisfied with that but of course we want to get better value for money. While I recognise that there may be some problems with devolved budgets, having flexibility and the ability to make a judgment in each individual prison establishment is a valuable course to take.
	At an important press conference, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed that funding for prison education will also be devolved to the Department for Education and Employment and, more importantly, it will be ring-fenced. That is an important commitment of the Government.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as the prison budget is now locally managed, will it be ring-fenced within the individual prison budget?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall have to come back to the noble Lord on that matter. I shall happily try to provide him with a fuller response.
	I believe that the noble Earl and the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Addington, asked about basic skills screening and testing. These basic skills tests are standardised. All prisoners are required to complete the basic skills agency screening test which is available in two forms and is the same. It is now the case that prisoners should take this test only at first instance and that the results of the test travel with them and advise their treatment throughout their time in prison.
	With his interest in dyslexia, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked how seriously we take that issue. Of course we take it seriously. All prison education departments are obliged to identify a prisoner's individual learning needs. That includes dyslexia. A dyslexia information guide was issued in February 1999. It includes a positive indicator questionnaire for use with prisoners which is of tremendous value and I think will be helpful to those working within the prison education service.
	We have been increasing resources. Over 1998-99, resources have increased from £40.4 million to £40.89 million and we are providing extra money within the Comprehensive Spending Review funding programme. Over the next three years, £30 million will be spent on education.
	My allocated time is drawing to a close. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said, this valuable debate is worthy of more time. However, we have been able to focus on some of the improvements in the delivery of education in prison establishments. The Government are not complacent. We believe that the Government have had an important opportunity to show that we have a clear strategy for improving the opportunities for prisoners to change.
	Education provision within the Prison Service requires to be seen as part of the wider forces for change. The direction of education is determined by the What Works strategy and the need to ensure that provision is linked to relevant outcomes so that the likelihood of reoffending is reduced. That informs our whole approach. I believe that the Prison Service has risen to the challenge of change by setting clear and measurable targets. Those targets will bear greatly on the levels of achievement for which we strive from the service and from every individual prisoner. Every effort is being made to offer relevant opportunities to offenders so that they can lead purposeful lives on release. Education is at the heart of it. We believe in education. We think that we can achieve great things. Much progress has been made but, as ever, there is more to do.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

House again in Committee
	Clause 69 [Limestone pavement orders: offence]:
	[Amendment No. 519 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 520:
	Page 43, line 46, at end insert--
	("( ) In section 34 of the 1981 Act (limestone pavement orders), in subsection (4) for "or disturbs" there is substituted ", disturbs or sells".").

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My noble friend Lady David is unfortunately unable to be in her place today. However, she raised this issue at Second Reading on 26th June. My noble friend has asked me to move the amendment on her behalf and I am happy to do so.
	It is a small but important amendment. Limestone pavement on a global scale is extremely rare and is one of the rarest features in Britain's landscape. It is irreplaceable. It is a habitat which has been created over thousands of years. As such, it is not a renewable resource in any sense of those words.
	In Britain, limestone pavement is home to 16 rare or threatened plant species. A range of butterflies and moths use the limestone flora associated with the pavement and the wren and wheatear make their nests in it. Limestone pavement is also known as waterworn limestone. As such, it is often used in garden rockeries. But most gardeners are totally unaware of both its origins and rarity and of the fact that one of the world's rarest habitats is being destroyed. If they were so aware, I am sure they would not use it because there are alternatives. Sandstone, granite, slate and deep-quarried limestone are readily available and more environmentally acceptable.
	In England, limestone pavement is protected by orders which make it illegal to remove stone or damage pavement. But in the remainder of Britain and Ireland there is no legal protection. Research has shown that the increased protection in England has put Irish pavement under greater threat. Sadly, the UK still harbours unscrupulous extractors who continue to remove limestone pavement from wherever they can obtain it. That is why the selling of limestone pavement must also be an offence.
	Some organisations believe that the continued damage shows that the legislative protection of limestone pavement is inadequate. The wildlife trusts and the limestone pavement action group are calling for a trade ban on the sale and purchase of limestone pavement in the UK as the only way effectively to halt its destruction. A combination of legislative enforcement and awareness-raising is needed to control demand and protect limestone pavement habitats in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. A sympathetic response to the amendment would assist in this process.

Lord Jopling: I have a good deal of sympathy with what I believe are the sentiments underlying the amendment. I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating a speech I made earlier on limestone pavements. However, in a previous incarnation I represented more limestone pavement areas than any other Member of the House of Commons. Some of the great limestone pavements existed in my former constituency in the north-west of England. In either 1978 or 1979 I think that I was the first person ever to propose amendments to a Bill to preserve limestone pavements. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness who proposes the amendment will understand my passionate desire to protect limestone pavements.
	I am in favour of almost everything the noble Baroness said. However, I am not in favour of the amendment in the terms proposed. I regret that I have seen the amendment only recently and have not had time to consider the 1981 Act. To add the words "or sells" to the legislation would be admirable if it referred to selling limestone pavement after it had been extracted from where it naturally occurs. I believe that that is the noble Baroness's desire; she nods assent. However, by inserting into the legislation the words "disturbs or sells" one makes it illegal for a landowner where limestone pavements exist to sell them in situ and preserve them, as we all wish.
	I sympathise with the noble Baroness's intention but the amendment is not well worded. If the noble Baroness and I were to get together, perhaps we could find a way of saying, "disturbs, or sells after it has been disturbed". I hope that that is her intention; again the noble Baroness nods. If a landowner has limestone pavement on his land and he or his family want to sell it, it would be unfair if he could not do so because of the amendment. I am sorry to be pedantic but it is important to make these points at this stage.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I shall be brief. I recall the long-standing constituency interest of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in the matter. He has made a valid point, but I commend my noble friend Lady Gibson on the powerful case that she has presented. I hope that some suitable action will be taken.
	I have missed most of the Committee stage, and earlier withdrew an amendment that might have been relevant. It would have provided for the confiscation of vehicles used in committing crimes--particularly rural crimes--not least those used to take limestone pavement. It is a profitable crime that costs nothing to commit. The criminals simply take a vehicle to the appropriate limestone pavement area, smash some pieces of rock and then sell them at astonishing prices. It is a crime that has been committed for a long time and should not be tolerated. I hope that, while taking note of the significant point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, Ministers will hold discussions with him or with my noble friend Lady Gibson to secure the right form of words to put an end to a practice that is destroying a significant part of our natural heritage.

Lord Glentoran: I shall also be brief. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, on moving the amendment. She mentioned Ireland. We should be European, not parochial. If we are going to take action to protect limestone pavement in this country, we should protect it also in Ireland and other European countries. I hope that the Government will consider the whole issue, to cover the trading, importing and selling of limestone pavement, because it is unacceptable.

Lord Greaves: I do not have much to add to the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. The limestone pavements of the North of England are some of this country's most glorious landscapes. No doubt there are more spectacular examples in other parts of Europe and elsewhere in the world, but we cannot afford to lose those features. The same applies in Ireland, where the limestone pavement at The Burren on the west coast is probably even more important botanically than that in the North of England.
	If a form of words can be found that clearly outlaws the trade in pieces of limestone pavement, we shall support it enthusiastically. We add our voices to those asking the Government to come back on Report with something constructive.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would make it an offence to sell waterworn limestone removed from a limestone pavement subject to a limestone pavement order. We have every sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, which my noble friend Lady Gibson moved on behalf of my noble friend Lady David. We recognise the desire to give greater protection to one of our most valuable habitats, but we do not think that the amendment would be effective.
	There continues to be a demand for limestone pavement for use in garden rockeries, but it is fed almost exclusively by stocks from outside the United Kingdom, largely from Ireland, where legal extraction continues. It is very difficult at point of sale to establish the source of the extracted material. We do not believe that the amendment would be enforceable because of the problems in distinguishing between legally and illegally extracted limestone.
	We are also conscious of calls to stem demand by enforcing a trade ban--perhaps one of the routes suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. However, that raises difficult issues, because any attempt to interfere with trade in legally extracted materials from other parts of the EU would be covered by the free trade rules of the Union.
	I understand and perhaps can sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We cannot arbitrarily impose a ban across the European Union. That is why we have concentrated on protecting all our significant remaining areas of limestone pavement and providing for more effective deterrents against illegal extraction.
	All significant areas of limestone pavement in England are now protected through the limestone pavement order provision in Section 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We are encouraging colleagues in Scotland and Wales to make full use of those provisions. In England there are currently 22 sites of special scientific interest and four special areas of conservation designated for their limestone pavement.
	The provisions for increased penalties in Clause 69 will substantially reinforce Section 34(4) of the 1981 Act, which makes it an offence,
	"If any person without reasonable excuse removes or disturbs limestone on or in any land designated by a limestone pavement order".
	We are increasing the penalty under those provisions from £5,000 to £20,000. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath recognises that that demonstrates the seriousness of our intent.
	We believe that the combination of those measures will provide an effective means to protect limestone pavements. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend Lady Gibson will not press her amendment.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank noble Lords for the support that they have given to the amendment. I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I understand her arguments. I am a little disappointed, but under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 69 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 521:
	After Clause 69, insert the following new clause--
	("Payments under certain agreements
	:TITLE3:PAYMENTS UNDER AGREEMENTS UNDER S.16 OF 1949 ACT OR S.15 OF 1968 ACT
	. In section 50 of the 1981 Act (which makes provision relating to payments under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968), in subsection (1)(a), for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and the preceding word "to" there is substituted "to any person; or".").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: moved Amendment No. 521A:
	After Clause 69, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Local wildlife sites
	:TITLE3:LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES
	. English Nature, as regards England, and the Countryside Council for Wales, as regards Wales, shall formulate standards for the identification of local wildlife sites by any relevant local authority and from time to time shall report to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales on the status of such sites.").

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This is a probing amendment. It follows on from the long debate that we had immediately before the supper break. It should have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, but unfortunately he is not with us tonight and it falls to me to do so, as a supporter of the amendment.
	English Nature, the wildlife trusts and the local authorities have a list of wildlife sites that go beyond the areas that are already designated, which we were talking about immediately before supper. They are areas known to contain wildlife that should be protected where people are anticipating possible movements caused by climate change and other changes in the countryside.
	As many noble Lords have said, it is important that the Bill is seen to provide comprehensive and real protection for biodiversity over the next 100 years, or at least during the next half of the coming century. I hope that the Government will tell us how they intend to safeguard the identification of local wildlife sites beyond what has already been done. I beg to move.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I rise to commend the probing of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and to reinforce the importance of local wildlife sites. The Bill is concerned primarily with sites of special scientific interest which are nationally or internationally important. However, much of our local biodiversity is also important, not because it is rare or special but because it is common. These days, we are becoming short of things which are common.
	Local wildlife sites are important for two reasons. First, they are places where some of our more common species continue to exist. Secondly, being local they are, by definition, close to where people live. Generally, people value and are more interested in wildlife which is close to their own locality than they might be in rather rare and special creatures elsewhere.
	Therefore, although I am not sure whether we require support for local wildlife sites to appear on the face of the Bill, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has raised an important point. The amendment encapsulates many practices that are occurring at present without statutory support, and the Minister may want to consider whether statutory support is necessary.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I briefly express my support for the amendment, in part in order to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who served for many years as chairman of the All-Party Conservation Group. As the present chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to him. I hope that the Committee will pay heed to the proposal that he and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, have put forward.
	My principal reason for supporting the amendment is that many hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of people in these islands live a long way from AONBs and even from sites of special scientific interest. From an educational point of view, a real case exists for promoting the establishment of local sites where local people can enjoy wildlife. Wildlife can be enjoyed in virtually every locality. It would be particularly appropriate for local authorities to take such projects on board in order to provide an opportunity for children within schools. I certainly hope that my noble friends will be able to give sympathetic consideration to the proposals.

Lord Whitty: I recognise the intentions behind the amendment and, indeed, the central importance of wildlife at local level in all localities. We need clear guidelines on the identification of local sites and we need substantially more information about their condition. However, I do not believe that we need an additional statutory power in this respect, and I can demonstrate that, through their action, the Government are already addressing the issue.
	In the Government's Framework for Action White Paper we made a commitment in relation to SSSIs to develop proposals on locally important sites in consultation with local authorities. We delivered that through the Local Sites Review Group. That group produced its report this year and we are now in a position to move forward. We have agreed to funding for a comprehensive research project in the coming financial year. The DETR project will include an examination of damage to local sites from non-development activities and consideration of the means of preventing them. The research project is also likely to include Wales.
	In consultation with other parties, English Nature is also putting arrangements in place to facilitate the preparation of draft guidance on the operation of local sites. Officials will be meeting English Nature shortly to agree the scope of the project and to set a deadline. I believe that we can make significant progress with English Nature over the next few months. We also want to ensure that the views of local authorities, land managers and voluntary conservation groups are taken into account fully before we publish our guidance.
	Meanwhile, local authorities are already incorporating local wildlife sites into their own biodiversity action plans. We have also indicated that we shall revise PPG9 on nature conservation to reflect the work that we are taking forward on local biodiversity.
	Therefore, I believe that the Government's commitment, funding and action, along with that of our partners, is clear. I hope that the assurances that I have given indicate that commitment, and that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the other noble Lords who support the amendment will not press it.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It appears that the Government have taken this on board, are doing something about it and will produce resources with which to put it into action. As I said at the beginning, this is a probing amendment. I doubt whether anything much remains to which we shall need to return on Report. Therefore, I shall consult the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 70 [Powers of entry]:
	[Amendment No. 521B not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 521C:
	Page 44, line 33, leave out ("the") and insert ("or in relation to").

Lord Glentoran: In moving Amendment No. 521C, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 521D and 521E. Briefly, Amendments Nos. 521C and 521D attempt to stretch the protection of SSSIs inasmuch as offences can be committed in relation to an SSSI; in other words, that they will affect an SSSI adversely. Such offences are "on or in relation to", for example, the fouling of a watercourse near an SSSI. The offence may have an effect on the water but not take place on the SSSI. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be able to think of many other such offences in the vicinity of an SSSI which over a period of time could seriously damage that SSSI. Therefore, the purpose of the amendments is to protect the SSSI from such an occurrence.
	We debated Amendment No. 521E when we discussed Amendments Nos. 491 and 492. We are saying that we feel that there is no consistency of approach throughout this part of the Bill. We believe that an environmental court is clearly needed but that the legislation is skirting that. I could go on but I believe that we have had that discussion. The Minister is well aware of the feeling of the Committee with regard to arbitration. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments Nos. 521C and 521D do not appear to me to be necessary. The offence in Section 34 of the 1981 Act, to which Amendment No. 521C refers, of removing or disturbing limestone pavement is applied "on or in any land". It is difficult to see how an offence outside the land of the type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, could affect a limestone pavement or therefore be designated by a limestone pavement order. The Section 42 offence in Amendment No. 521D relates to a moorland or heathland order. Again, I find it difficult to understand what offence outside the area would justify the phrase "or in relation to", which would be inserted by the amendment. Therefore, there appears to be no logic in applying the powers of entry for an offence committed in relation to land because there would be no continuity with the offences.
	I speculated, although the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did not refer to it, that he may have been using an analogy from Clause 70(5), which correctly refers to,
	"on or (as the case may be) in relation to",
	that land. The reason for the wording in Clause 70(5) is because some of the offences in Section 28M, to which that subsection refers, are ones committed by a public body. They could include offences committed off the land; for example, abstraction licences wrongly granted upstream away from the site itself but which could damage the site. However, I do not see how that could apply to limestone pavements or to moorland or heathland.
	As regards Amendment No. 521E, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right. We have been over this ground. I understand that the Land Tribunal would be well qualified to arbitrate on claims of that nature. It could well do so. But the amendment provides only that the Land Tribunal can be involved. That seems too restrictive. We are talking about damage which has occurred in the exercise of the power of entry where there is a dispute about the person's entitlement to compensation or the amount. We believe that the Secretary of State should be allowed to retain his discretion. The arguments are not sufficiently compelling to suggest that the Land Tribunal alone should arbitrate on the issue.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for those explanations. When I read my notes on Amendments Nos. 521C and 521D, I was thinking of external pollution of one sort or another which might ultimately damage an SSSI. Perhaps I have not dealt with the matter in sufficient detail or followed it through. I accept the Minister's explanation also on Amendment No. 521E which I do not press at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 521D and 521E not moved.]
	Clause 70 agreed to.
	Clause 71 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 522:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("PART IIIA
	:TITLE3:AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
	:TITLE3:DESIGNATION OF AREAS
	.--(1) Where it appears to the Countryside Agency (in this Part referred to as "the Agency") that an area which is in England but not in a National Park is of such outstanding natural beauty that it is desirable that the provisions of this Part relating to areas designated under this section should apply to it, the Agency may, for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, by order designate the area for the purposes of this Part as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(2) Where it appears to the Countryside Council for Wales (in this Part referred to as "the Council") that an area which is in Wales but not in a National Park is of such outstanding natural beauty that it is desirable that the provisions of this Part relating to areas designated under this section should apply to it, the Council may, for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, by order designate the area for the purposes of this Part as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(3) In this Part "area of outstanding natural beauty" means an area designated under this section as an area of outstanding natural beauty.").

Lord Whitty: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 523, 524, 532, 541, 544, 545, 547, 553 and 566. We now move to that part of the Bill which lays the basis for the Government's promises to introduce into the Bill provisions on AONBs. Amendment No. 522 and the other amendments in the group largely re-enact existing Sections 87 and 88 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which set out the arrangements for designating AONBs and make reference to various functions of particular bodies in relation to them. The Government propose to consolidate those provisions in order to bring all references to AONBs together in this Bill and to update various references in the text.
	We shall come on shortly to the Government's proposed new provisions for AONBs, which provide for a management plan to be prepared for every AONB and for the possibility of creating conservation boards. When these matters were discussed in another place, in response to amendments to the Bill tabled there, both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches indicated their wish to see measures enabling better management of AONBs to be brought forward by the Government. We hope that there will be evidence of that previous cross-party support in our discussions on these three main groups this evening.
	I wish to make clear that Ministers will not be commenting during this debate on the question of the possible designation of new national parks in the New Forest and the South Downs. We have asked the Countryside Agency to consider those possible designations, and it is doing so. The role of the Secretary of State is to consider designation orders if and when they are produced by the agency. Therefore, it would be invidious for me to make any substantive comment on those matters this evening. I thought I should make that point clear.
	The effect of this consolidation is to continue with the arrangements laid down in the 1949 Act whereby AONBs are designated by the Countryside Agency, and now, in Wales, by the Countryside Council for Wales, and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or by the National Assembly for Wales, with appropriate arrangements for consultation. However there are two particular clarifications in the consolidation which I should mention.
	First, subsection (1) of Amendment No. 522 states explicitly that the purpose of designating AONBs is the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. That has long been the accepted purpose, but the 1949 Act referred to it in a convoluted way. Section 87(1) of the 1949 Act said that the then National Parks Commission, subsequently, the Countryside Commission, and, most recently, the Countryside Agency, could designate areas as AONBs if they were of such outstanding natural beauty that it was desirable that the provisions of the 1949 Act relating to AONBs should apply to them.
	Among those provisions was Section 11 which, via Section 88, provided that local planning authorities whose area contained all or part of an AONB had powers to take all such action as appeared to them expedient for preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. In the 1995 Environment Act "preserving and enhancing" was changed to "conserving and enhancing". So my point is that we are not proposing any real change here.
	Secondly, we are proposing to take this opportunity, post-devolution, to make clear on the face of the legislation the fact that the Countryside Council for Wales and the National Assembly exercise in Wales the responsibilities exercised by the Countryside Agency and the Secretary of State in England.
	Amendments Nos. 531 and 532 and the consequential amendments represent the various matters of interpretation, consequential and transitional provisions and repeals required as a result of Part IIIA of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 522, Amendment No. 522A:
	Line 9, leave out ("and enhancing").

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out what this particular group of amendments is about. I wish really to speak to Amendments Nos. 522A to 522D but in doing so I crave the indulgence of the Committee because we are in a somewhat unusual situation.
	The Minister has rightly signalled that the possibility of these amendments was mentioned in the other place. It would be true to say that there was general support for that and, indeed, there is general support here. I hope that no one will take anything that is said as being in contradiction of that fact. The fact is that AONBs have been in existence. They have been well administered and they work extremely well. Nothing that is said or done here will do anything to diminish their status or endanger the principles on which they are founded.
	The fact is that in this group of amendments and the next we have 11 clauses, three schedules and 18 pages of additional legislation which have received no detailed consideration, apart from a general agreement on the principle in the other place, and there is no certainty that the other place would have agreed the detail.
	Worse than that, although the potential for such amendments was signalled in the other place, they were not inserted into the Bill until after this Committee stage had begun. I believe that more than a simple Committee stage debate is needed to deal with the situation. These amendments involve a large slice of legislation. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry would say that these amendments form a Bill in their own right because 18 months or two years ago he introduced a Bill into this House that almost precisely paralleled them.
	The Committee is not discussing just a series of amendments to a Bill, but a major extension to the Bill, which is perfectly appropriate as, when one looks at the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that it concerns a connected purpose of the Bill. However, I believe that some discussion of the principle behind these groups of amendments would be appropriate at this point. I hope that the Committee will indulge me, and other noble Lords, if we feel inclined to that view.
	Such a debate is important because when this Bill returns to the other place, these amendments, including any amendments that we make to them, will be considered as Lords amendments. They will not go through the normal procedure of examination and cross-examination to which the other place would expose legislation; but perhaps the Minister will assure me that the authorities in the other place have in mind some special procedure under which these matters can be considered.
	When the other place considers Lords amendments, particularly in the present circumstances, the fact is that one can expect them to be considered with the Whips heavily on and the guillotine well on its way down. Discussion will be severely curtailed. I do not say that to be particularly critical, but I believe that it is being somewhat cavalier with what I would describe as normal parliamentary procedure.
	Amendment No. 522 encapsulates, in a sense, the principle of the matter. It brings forward the power not only to conserve and to enhance AONBs, but also to create new AONBs. That is a worthy purpose with which I have no quarrel. I merely add a word of caution. Already we have 41 AONBs in England and Wales. Two million hectares are covered by that designation--for those noble Lords who are old-fashioned that is 5 million acres; it is five times the county of Essex; and it is 14 per cent of the land mass of England and Wales.
	With the start of the concept of conservation areas, we considered matters carefully in my county and produced a list of areas that were seriously worthy of conservation. They were outstandingly beautiful areas and merited every degree of protection that could possibly be given, but the domino effect came into play. People then thought that such protection was desirable, so there was great pressure for further areas to be designated. We finished up with 100 conservation areas and in the process we devalued the concept. I merely issue the warning that, if we are not careful and create too many AONBs, we shall devalue the concept and it will become meaningless.
	I am bound to say that when I consider much of the scenery in Wales, I could create one AONB which would pretty well cover the whole of the Principality. That would be worth far more than some of the other areas in England that we have already protected. But that is a personal prejudice and nothing to do with the Bill.
	So we need to be extremely careful. It is all very well to say that the new procedures being established in the Bill will apply only where they are wanted. I have already mentioned the domino effect. At present AONBs are brought into being by local authorities and are administered by joint committees. That has been done successfully for a long time. So I pay tribute to all their hard work. They do that work in conjunction with local conservation bodies.

Lord Marlesford: Perhaps I can correct my noble friend on one important point. I believe I am right in saying that the Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, designates AONBs, and that designation is confirmed by the Secretary of State. It is not in the hands of local authorities. It is conservation areas which are proposed by local authorities.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend is correct as to the current situation, but originally the designation procedure was very different, even though I may not have got the facts precisely correct.
	At present, joint committees of local authorities generally administer AONBs. We will be debating in detail in a little while whether or not a parish council is a local authority; it depends which Act we look at. But the Bill also gives the opportunity to establish conservation boards to look after AONBs. We have no problem with that in principle, if it is voluntary--no doubt the Minister will say that that is the intention. But the question arises as to what they are to do, and again the domino effect will come into play. When the law was changed with regard to polytechnic status, there was a tidal wave which swamped the title "polytechnic" and turned them all into universities in a matter of weeks. If we go down that road we need to recognise that we are establishing a new, administrative superstructure which may well involve considerable cost without any real benefit.
	National parks are an example of a parallel situation. Originally they were administered by local government and are now independent authorities in their own right. I have not heard any evidence that they are run any better than they were before. They are run well--let us not deny that--but they are not run better. So we need to be wary.
	In relation to the constitution of these putative bodies, I was fascinated to see that, as the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint 60 per cent of their members. These are local bodies dealing with local areas. The Minister and I have crossed swords before on who should control local affairs. But this is completely unreasonable. It is control freakery run riot. It is fair enough that local authorities should appoint 40 per cent of the members. But 60 per cent being appointed by the Secretary of State is not acceptable. I understand that he will consult all sorts of other people. But does he need to make the actual appointment? These are matters we shall question in detail when we reach the appropriate parts of the Bill.
	We want to see AONBs continue as they have done; to be enhanced and embellished as a result of the willingness, co-operation and investment of local communities. If that is to be achieved, we must think carefully about the general issues behind the Bill. I hope that I have said enough in introducing the background to the amendments.
	I want to speak to two amendments. The first removes the words "and enhancing". It is a probing amendment. "Enhancing" something is a subjective matter. I accept the Minister's comments about the wording of existing legislation, but earlier tonight we heard about the possibility of improving past legislation if it is not all that it might have been. I have no problem with conserving or preserving an AONB. However, no matter how many people agree to the "enhancement", some will find it inappropriate. Therefore, there is a potential difficulty.
	The second amendment deals with expenditure and seeks to ensure that where such changes take place, the expenditure falls with the Countryside Agency for England and the Countryside Council for Wales, which I believe is appropriate.
	I have said enough and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for having taken up time. That was necessary because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord said a great deal but I am not sure how he intends us to proceed. He moved amendments to my amendment and cross-referred to many amendments which appear in or to relate to later groups. Perhaps for the convenience of the Committee, before moving into a general debate it would be better to have a little clarification.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I had hoped that I had made myself plain and I apologise if I did not. I believe that in respect of this part of the Bill we almost need a short Second-Reading-style diversion so that Members can let their hair down on the general issues before getting into too much detail on the amendments. The difficulty is that procedurally, in order to make my remarks, I have to rise and speak to the amendments. Having no flexibility, the difficulty is that if we do not have a debate on the principle there may be a danger that we might have to ask for a recommitment on these groups.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I am somewhat confused by his introduction to this part of the Bill. It seems that the Conservative Benches barely join with us in continuing to do what both our parties did in the Commons; that was, to press for the introduction of the legislation. We have been fortunate in your Lordships' House because we had a dry run for this debate when we dealt with the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
	Like other Members of the Committee, at that time I received many representations about most of the issues which have been raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and many of the issues we are about to cover. I am under the impression that the provisions introduced by the Government--we may need clarification of some of them--are broadly welcomed by members of the joint advisory committees of the AONBs and the Local Government Association. Local authorities which have AONBs in their area are very keen to receive statutory backing for the management and conservation of them. This is exactly the kind of legislation for which they have been asking to help to underpin the work undertaken. Therefore, I am very confused by the noble Lord. As we go through the amendments tabled by the noble Lord my confusion will continue. There appear to be a number of contradictions to which I shall turn as the Committee debates individual amendments.
	My only worry about the Government's amendment in this part of the Bill--I am sure that it can be clarified as we go through it--is that there may be two tiers of AONBs. They became a different animal from national parks under the 1949 legislation. I refute the noble Lord's suggestion that since national parks have had their own authorities they have not contributed anything to their areas that local authorities cannot. I declare an interest in that my husband is chairman of one such authority, but even if he were not I would claim that national parks had contributed a great deal.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I did not suggest that they had not made a contribution. I said I had not heard that their contribution had been any greater than was already being made, which is a slightly different statement.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It does not sound sufficiently different to me, but I accept what the noble Lord says. My worry is that, following the implementation of this legislation, there will be two tiers of AONBs: those with conservation boards and those without. That would be unfortunate. As the Committee considers these amendments my concern is to ensure that the smaller AONBs, which are unlikely ever to apply for conservation board status, are not disadvantaged by the legislation. That would be a retrograde step. We must look to the purpose of AONBs, not their size or how many local authorities are involved in their administration.
	I disagree with the purpose of Amendment No. 522A. The purpose is to conserve the splendid landscape for which the AONB was originally designated and, where there is the opportunity, to enhance it. There is no reason why we must regard an area as a static museum piece. Enhancement may well be in the interests of the AONB; it may encourage more tourism. The AONB may decide to go down a number of routes for the purposes of enhancement, but to remove reference to enhancement at this stage would be a great mistake.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I speak in support of Amendments Nos. 522, 523 and 524 and the new clauses that they introduce. As two noble Lords have already pointed out, I introduced a Private Member's Bill on this subject in the House of Lords a year ago. I found it easier to get a Private Member's Bill through a number of stages in the House of Lords than I did in my 23 years in the House of Commons. I have an interest in this matter, which I happily declare. I live in an AONB and am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, which I believe is the only conservation board in existence. It is a voluntary arrangement between the relevant local authorities and the Countryside Agency. I also serve on the executive committee of the newly-formed AONB Association. Having made that long declaration once this evening, I promise the Committee that I shall not do it again in moving specific amendments in due course.
	This is a red letter day for AONBs. I am pleased that, by and large, the Government have followed the commitments made by Michael Meacher, Minister of State for the Environment, in Standing Committee B on 23rd May. This is not exactly a new matter. It was first mooted in 1989 in the Smart Anderson report which was commissioned by the Countryside Commission. That report proposed improved management structures and funding for AONBs. It was in 1997 that the Countryside Commission issued a consultation paper on improving the funding and management of England's AONBs. It was a year later that it published its Protecting our Finest Countryside advice to government, which proposed improved funding and management of AONBs. It was essentially with its proposals, and with substantial support from the county council in which area my former constituency of Mid-Sussex used to lie, that I drafted and introduced my Bill a year ago.
	For years there has been within the AONBs--I know this through our executive committee--a general feeling that more formal improved management, funding and effective statutory underpinning are needed. They want that without, in any sense, trying to do the work of local authorities in, for example, the minutiae of development control. We shall return to that issue later in the debate when we consider the detail of other amendments. There were and have been continuous worries about the AONBs, whether or not they were represented by a joint advisory committee. To a large extent those worries are being settled, I hope, by the legislation the Government suggest tonight. By and large the Government have got it right, except on funding, on local representation on boards and perhaps on management plans.
	There is one area where I would correct my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. He said that we want to see AONBs continuing as they are. Most AONBs do not want that because they think they are too insecure, whether or not they have a JAC--a joint advisory committee. They do not see where their funding will come from, because, when pressure on environment issues hits a local authority, one of the first things to be axed is the money available for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. That makes it extremely difficult for JACs to employ good staff. If they are unable to employ good staff, how can they help farmers, who desperately need help at the moment, on schemes under which they can add to their own bottom line by entering into stewardship or environmentally sensitive area schemes?
	Therefore, this move towards the setting up of statutory conservation boards for AONBs and giving AONBs many more specific statutory responsibilities is what the AONBs want and need at the moment. It is on that basis that I speak in general support of Amendments Nos. 522, 523 and 524. We shall of course have detailed discussions about specific amendments shortly.

Earl Peel: I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said in moving the amendment. He said that what is required at the moment is some kind of Second Reading debate. We have in front of us a major piece of legislation that to all intents and purposes has been tagged on to the Bill at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I for one would find it quite difficult not to make some general wide-ranging comments on the implications of this legislation without taking it amendment by amendment. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to say a few words in general.
	I shall start by declaring an interest. I live in an AONB which has largely been well-run, but there are clearly opportunities for enhancement and improvement. I shall return to that in a moment. I must start by saying that I find it simply astonishing that such a major piece of legislation should be cobbled on to the Bill as this has been. It is surely true to say that there has been only fairly limited public debate on the whole matter of AONBs, either with local authorities, or, perhaps more importantly, with those local people whose livelihood could well be seriously influenced by the amendments.
	I entirely agree with what my noble friend said. I am fully behind well thought-through, well resourced schemes for the further improvement of our countryside. Indeed, I am not in any way against the strengthening of the statutory base for AONBs and the production of management plans. But for the Secretary of State to give himself such wide-ranging powers as, for example, the creation of new conservation boards against the wishes of local authorities and to transfer any of the functions of local authorities, as stated in Amendment No. 525, to those boards is simply breath-taking. Furthermore--and let us make no mistake about this--the Government are setting about the creation of a whole new raft of national parks in virtually everything but name, and, as has already been pointed out by noble friend, the areas concerned throughout the width and breadth of England and Wales could be considerably larger than those covered by national parks.
	Within the national park legislation the Secretary of State has the power to appoint 30 per cent of the board members. But later amendments give him the power to appoint 60 per cent of the members of the new conservation boards, all at the expense of local democracy. If anything is designed to get these new conservation boards off to a bad start, it is just that, because it will pit local people against the Government. That is not in anyone's interests.
	I see from Amendment No. 527 that no such order will be made by the Secretary of State without being approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Well, big deal! I can assure the Government that that really is no comfort to those many people who could be directly affected by the amendments and, thus, by this new legislation. Furthermore, there is nothing in the amendments to say that those living and working in such areas will be even consulted. They will not, as I understand it, even be invited to provide comments on any of the management plans.
	Generally speaking, my view is that the countryside would be better served by conservation schemes--I appreciate that this is not just about conservation schemes--such as, for example, the environmentally sensitive area and countryside stewardship schemes, which are designed to meet specific requirements of the areas and are administered by existing government departments or agencies and therefore do not require the establishment of yet another tier of bureaucracy, with all the red tape and the nonsense that follow, never mind the cost. Furthermore, I see no reason at all why, subject to proper guidance from Whitehall, there should be any reason why planning matters should not remain with the local authorities unless, of course, there is general agreement among the local authorities that such a board would be a better mechanism for delivering the proper management of AONBs.
	However, apart from objecting to much of the detail of the way the Government are approaching this delicate matter, in principle I object to the way that this major piece of rural legislation is being delivered. I should also add that if the Government believe that local authorities are in agreement with the government proposals, as laid out in the amendments, they should read my local newspaper as of last Friday. I should have thought that the most equitable and sensible way of dealing with this matter was to decouple this part of the Bill and to bring it back as a separate piece of legislation, thus allowing for full and proper consultation and debate.
	I should like to add that I do appreciate the good intentions which lie behind what my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry is trying to achieve. What is more, I have no doubts about or objections to--why should I?--what he and others have achieved in the South Downs. However, the formation of the South Downs Conservation Board was achieved voluntarily, without diktat from the Secretary of State either in the formation of the conservation board or, indeed, as to the composition of the members of that board. That represents a world of difference between that situation and the possibility that exists in this Bill for the Secretary of State to ride roughshod over local opinion and the democratic process simply to satisfy his conservation credentials and his belief that forming another committee will be the way to deal with these problems. In my opinion, that is not the best way to move forwards.
	I shall certainly support any amendment which would halt the compulsory removal of powers from local authorities to the new conservation boards against the wishes of local authorities, along with any amendment which prevents the Secretary of State from nominating the majority of board members. I shall also urge other noble Lords who believe that the objectives which lie behind the AONBs can be achieved without a complete takeover by central government to accept my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Bridges: Unlike other noble Lords, I do not feel that it is necessary to make a Second Reading speech, because I addressed this subject in my own contribution to that debate. However, we did not then have the benefit of the Government's proposals before us. I made it clear in my speech that, for me, this was the most important part of the Bill and that perhaps the most important part of that would be the way in which the local authority would be related to the new conservation boards and the management of AONBs.
	I shall turn now to a particular point which arises on one amendment in this grouping; namely, Amendment No. 524. Subsection (4) states that,
	"A local planning authority ... shall take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving ... the area of outstanding natural beauty".
	Like the Opposition Front Bench, I do not like the word "expedient". It recalls that part of the Book of Common Prayer where those who are assembled are invited to pray for those causes which are thought important. The priest presiding over the service sums up by asking the deity,
	"when two or three are gathered together in thy Name",
	to grant their prayers,
	"as may be most expedient for them".
	In other words, this will be a very permissive affair. That is not the right way to approach it. The local Authority needs to play an important part in the management of the AONB.
	Indeed, the absent part of this Bill at the moment would be met by the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, at an earlier stage. I believe that it was Amendment No. 453, which would place a duty on all public bodies to have regard to the objectives of the AONB. That is an absolutely cardinal point and I believe that we shall be returning to it later.
	I speak from some experience, having lived in an AONB where the local authority chose to set its own judgment above that of the Government's own policies for the AONB. I wish to see that situation stopped. It is wrong. A general national approach should be adopted, with local arrangements to put it into effect. I shall make a few further comments on other clauses when we reach them.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wish to make only a short speech. I should like to say, first, that my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Peel have both said absolutely what was in my mind. I do not always find myself in the position of being able cordially to congratulate my own Front Bench, but on this occasion I do so without reservation. I thought that my noble friend made a wise and balanced comment on a Bill about which, I have to say, I am considerably worried.
	I do not believe that the Minister has any right to protest about the Committee overlapping or infringing the limits imposed by the grouping. I think that the grouping in this instance is a mistake. The debate is about not only the Bill as a whole but the powers of central government. I remember that long ago when I was a member of a government--it seems ages and ages ago--I began to doubt whether we were really possessed of that monopoly of wisdom which governments seem to think they have. As time has gone on, I have seen government after government coming more and more to disregard local opinion, making life more and more difficult for local government and taking more and more power for themselves. Here is another Bill in which exactly that is being done. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly pointed out, here we have 18 pages of legislation which, so far as I know, has been totally undiscussed in another place.
	I think it is generally felt by some in another place that they enjoy absolute liberty to say what they like about your Lordships' House. There are many aspects of our affairs in which those in another place would be very unwise to press those comparisons too far; they might come off much worse than they expect.
	I am not quite sure--I should like to hear the Minister's view--to what extent it is intended that areas of outstanding natural beauty can be almost automatically made into national parks or given the powers of national parks. The Minister shakes his head. I should be grateful if, when he comes to respond, he can make clear what is the position and what are the Government's intentions.
	I pause to ask the Minister to what extent planning authorities will have the power to designate areas which they consider to be of outstanding natural beauty? Perhaps he will try to anticipate what the inhabitants of those areas are likely to feel. I do not know whether it has even occurred to the Government to think about the reactions of the inhabitants of such areas to any proposals which may emerge. The consultation on this part of the Bill has been somewhere between minimal and nil. Certainly I have not heard anything about it in my part of the world.
	I have talked often enough in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the powers of Secretaries of State. The Committee would be wise to be very careful in giving these sweeping powers to Secretaries of State on the basis that they are possessed of the wisdom and sense of fairness and justice that they think they possess. If one looks at the daily press and reads some of the utterances of those who occupy the position of Secretary of State, one finds it very hard to cling on to any rudimentary illusion that the holders of those offices are possessed of any peculiar wisdom.
	I shall not trespass upon the question of conservation boards, except to say that here is one more instance of Secretaries of State grabbing more powers to themselves, satisfied always that they and their advisers are wholly competent to exercise those powers to the benefit of the nation.
	I conclude on a minor note. I live in a village which is a conservation area. My neighbours wanted to pull down three or four not very large leylandii, which are a menace. They had to seek planning permission. That is a small example of the way in which we fetter ourselves with unnecessary, stupid restrictions. People ought to be paid to cut down leylandii.

Lord Marlesford: I agree with my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Peel that the Government must expect to be subjected to something of a Second Reading approach to the proposed new clause. It is a major addition to the Bill. The clause as drafted has not been discussed in another place. I am not sure, given the use of the guillotine in another place nowadays, that it would necessarily have greatly benefited from such discussion. At any rate, the new clause has not been debated; therefore, it is right and reasonable that we should scrutinise it in some detail.
	That said, I strongly welcome the government amendment. It is an important addition to the protection and enhancement--I am happy to emphasise the word "enhancement"--of the beauty of the English and Welsh countryside. I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for the pathfinder role that he played in introducing his Private Member's Bill last year.
	A point worth making is that, among the great reforms comprising the major achievements of the Attlee Government, along with the National Health Service came legislation for the protection of our countryside. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I was lucky enough to be chairman for five years, had fought for such a measure since 1927. When those great reforms were introduced, the legislation provided for both national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. One important premise is not only sometimes forgotten, but is not always appreciated. In the hierarchy of protection--inevitably, if one is trying to protect the countryside there is bound to be a hierarchy because one cannot do everything at the same time--national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty were equal. There was no question of national parks being superior. The difference between national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty was that national parks were areas of wilderness. That made it easier to set up a particular form of protection and governance for them.
	The result has been that over the years AONBs have been something of poor sisters to national parks. I strongly welcome this step--belated and slightly muddled though it may be--to provide added protection and an opportunity for AONBs to be protected. The pressures on our countryside are colossal. They come from central government, from local government and from development. There was a suggestion that local government is perfectly adequate to protect the countryside. However, perhaps I may give an example. We have only to think of the National Trust and Operation Neptune. Should we have preserved some 500 miles of our best coast without Operation Neptune? Half the local authorities, if they had had the opportunity of having those areas of coast, would have been only too glad to see holiday villages and chalets spread along their coastline. It would have brought in a large amount in rates.
	I do not accept that local government is necessarily the best guardian of the countryside. I am a tremendous fan of the National Trust. I have no interest to declare, except as a humble member of it. I believe that what we have done is enormously important. I do not want to speak in detail about these amendments. I believe that we should consider them most carefully. However, I give a very strong welcome to what the Government are now doing. I hope that it becomes part of the Bill.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, compliment my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on what, for him, is certainly a red letter day. At the risk of being designated a philistine in these matters, I must draw attention to the plethora of conservation areas that now exist and, indeed, to the danger that we depreciate the value of those various designations simply by multiplication. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, there is a devaluation of the concept. We delude ourselves that designation of itself contributes to conservation. Our experience of SSSIs should surely disabuse us of that naive belief.
	There has been reference to the numerous failures of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am sure that many of those failures have been due to lack of resources, but there are other reasons. We have over 1,000 SSSIs in Wales. A quarter of the entire country is covered by the environmentally sensitive area designation. There are about 50 national nature reserves, eight special protection areas under the EC birds directive, seven wetlands under the Ramsar Convention and two marine nature reserves, as well as three national parks and five areas of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed, there may be more. But, additionally, we are now greening agricultural grant schemes, both European and domestic.
	A great deal is being done but, in my view, there is quite proper concern about this multiplicity of schemes and designations. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that what is important is that they should be meaningful. I wanted to make that point; I also wish to speak to a later grouping of amendments.
	I am concerned about the power of local planning authorities to "enhance" the natural beauty of an AONB, as described in subsection (4) of the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 524. I am not the only one concerned about this; indeed, the Country Landowners' Association, among others, has also pointed out that here we have,
	"a sweeping power for local planning authorities to take all such action as appears expedient to conserve and enhance AONBs".
	Precisely what action do the Government have in mind? Would it include rejecting any planning application that the authority felt did not both conserve and enhance the AONB?
	I received CLA briefing only today. But my mind has already wandered to a scene in Anglesey--in particular to Malltraeth, better known perhaps as Bodorgan Marsh. I remember from my boyhood the natural sand dunes, which have been trucked away for the building industry over recent decades and replaced by pine forests managed by the Forestry Commission. The lovely sea sedge has given way to a thin skein of green pasture that is not required at a time of set-aside land.
	I assure the Committee that we now regard such so-called "enhancement" on the part of local planning authorities as gross desecration of a natural landscape. I hope that in future we can protect our heritage from that kind of devastating enhancement. Frankly, with the experience that I have had, I am not sure that I can trust authorities of various kinds with enhancement in any true sense.

Lord Rotherwick: I support the important intention to introduce amendments to bring about much better management of AONBs. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. I was fortunate enough to be able to make a Second Reading speech over a year ago on the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am sure that he did not consider that a fortunate occasion as I was responsible for introducing the amendment that stopped the Bill. However, he caused me intense embarrassment for when I moved a previous amendment I discovered that my Tellers had been persuaded not to support me. I was ruled out of time.
	I do not wish to go through all my objections as I support fully what my noble friend Lord Peel said and do not wish to replicate it. I am a little confused as to what I should say at this point. I believe that Amendment No. 522A has been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I am nervous of the word "enhancing". As someone who lives in an AONB, I want to see our countryside improved and sustained. That would be considerably better than enhancing it. After all, to enhance means to heighten, to intensify or to exaggerate. Much of the countryside in an AONB is man-made. It makes me nervous to think what an undemocratic body could do in the way of heightening, intensifying or exaggerating countryside. Surely it must be better to sustain and improve it.

Baroness Mallalieu: I declare an interest in that I live in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns. I warmly welcome the Government's proposal to include this provision in the Bill. In an ideal world it would, of course, have been far better if the matter had been considered in another place first and if we had had time to go through the measure clause by clause without the pressures with which we are undoubtedly now faced.
	To those Members of the Committee who say, "Let us look at the measure and bring it back at some later stage", one can say only that we have waited a long time for such a measure. Given the legislative programme, to bring the measure back at a later stage would mean some years of delay. We cannot spare that time. In the area in which I live there is perhaps the greatest developmental pressure that there has ever been because of its proximity to London. There is increasing traffic and neglect of many woodlands. The rivers are much reduced in flow. There has been inadequate investment for many years in the rights of way network.
	The decline in farm incomes means that there is a real loss of rural character. In perhaps five or so years, places such as the area in which I live, and which many visit and enjoy, could deteriorate into some form of suburb. In my area, the proposed provisions are greatly welcomed by people involved with the AONB. They feel that at present they possess Cinderella status. They hope that the provisions will greatly strengthen the position.
	These measures have my total support. However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind two factors when he considers the later amendments. We are developing a conservation industry. It seems often to consist of people who are not necessarily connected with the area in which they operate. They may neither live nor work there. Sometimes their qualifications are questionable. But more and more we appoint boards of such people to take decisions which affect the lives of people who live and work in these places.
	First, I have no doubt that the proposed conservation boards will be extremely beneficial. But I am troubled that the Government have the balance wrong. To take powers away from elected representatives, the local people, and give them to government appointees in the proportions proposed here worries me. That is my first concern.
	Secondly, it is desperately important that we use these new powers not simply to be protectionist and to keep those areas looking pretty but to keep the local people there and working. That may mean adopting different approaches to planning applications. It may mean that in some circumstances we have to give greater weight to the needs of local people than perhaps those who wish areas to look pretty would choose.
	Those are my two reservations. However, I hope that the amendments become part of the Bill. It is important that they are on the statute book as soon as possible.

The Earl of Selborne: I follow the noble Baroness in her reservations. I support in principle the concept that AONBs clearly complement the national park structure. It is important that we take this opportunity for legislation and support the Government's intention in that respect. However, we must recognise the essential difference between national parks and AONBs. I agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford that they have equal status in law but they are not the same. National parks have to have an element of wilderness or public recreation of a nature which AONBs cannot provide because they tend to be more managed or settled countryside. For that reason, particular care must be taken to ensure that local elected representatives have the ability to influence the policies implemented to enhance or maintain the AONB.
	I agree with the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that some of the measures--I refer in particular to the dilution of local representatives--could dilute local democratic accountability. I cannot agree with the concern of my noble friend Lord Marlesford--normally I follow him to the end--about local council propensity for building developments along the coast. We are in no position to say that we must replace local government by a more enlightened system. It seems a highly improbable concept. We must have confidence in local government. We can only guarantee that the socio-economic provisions in the AONB are effective and relevant if we enhance the ability of local authorities to contribute to those AONBs.
	There is no incompatibility. The joint committees are the creations of local authorities. The government amendments refer frequently to the need to consult local authorities. I hope that as we debate these amendments we are given some degree of comfort that where local authorities are less than enthusiastic about some of the measures the Government will give careful weight to those views.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I declare an interest, as the president of the Peak District, South Yorkshire and Sheffield branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The CPRE is very supportive of the amendments. However, I agree that democratic accountability is always important, particularly in more populous areas than the national parks. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of that point.

Lord Rotherwick: I meant to ask the Minister earlier why these large and important amendments have had to be inserted at this stage. Why could they not have been put in at the beginning?

Lord Whitty: The Committee has taken advantage of our flexible procedure. It is understandable that we should have something like a Second Reading debate on a group of substantial amendments, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and others have said, have been introduced relatively late. I do not object to that, although I should like to get the procedure back on the rails and start talking about the amendments.
	However, I resent the suggestion that we should not have tabled the amendments. That is difficult to take. There is enormous support across the country for amendments along these lines. There was consensus in another place that we should introduce such amendments. Ministers in another place were pressed to introduce them by the Opposition Front Benches, as well as by our own colleagues. There is widespread support among local authorities, contrary to what some noble Lords have said. The Local Government Association supports them, as do members of all parties. No doubt there are some reservations, as there are legitimate reservations in the Committee, but in general local authorities support the provisions. We have engaged in widespread consultation since 1998. It is a distortion to claim that the provisions would allow a domino effect, with areas slipping from nothing to being designated areas of outstanding natural beauty and then national parks virtually overnight without local authorities being able to intervene.
	The amendments have been talked about for a considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, presented a Bill very similar to the amendments not long ago. I cannot resist saying that it might have got further were there not some disputes within his party on the issue. Nevertheless, there was considerable support for the Bill and there is considerable support for the changes proposed in the amendments.
	We are not proposing an automatic transfer to AONB status or from AONBs to conservation boards. That will be only one way of administering AONBs and will not be universal. The provision will be subject to the situation within particular areas of outstanding natural beauty. Conservation boards will be appropriate for some areas, particularly where a large number of local authorities are involved, but they will not be universal. Some flexibility has been built in.
	Conservation boards will also not transfer an AONB into a national park. They are not to be given planning powers. They are intended to be relatively light-touch bodies. They will be introduced in areas where there is strong local support. I refute suggestions that we are excluding local people, local government and local representation from the bodies. The boards are not intended to create a two-tier structure. The Countryside Agency is working with the Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to try to sort out the structure and funding. We certainly do not intend them to perform a number of the functions that have been suggested.

Earl Peel: I am sure that the noble Lord is right that there is no intention to do that, but does he agree that under the amendments the Secretary of State could impose conservation boards on AONB authorities and could, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, override any opposition that they expressed in consultation?

Lord Whitty: Yes; the Secretary of State has that power, but not in the group of amendments that we are supposed to be debating now. However, that is subject to widespread consultation, which a number of the amendments stand to enhance. Conservation boards are likely to be appropriate only in some areas. They would not be imposed in most areas unless there was clear support for them. Therefore, the idea that the Secretary of State is trampling roughshod over all areas of outstanding natural beauty in the country and is opposing new structures without consultation is completely erroneous.
	So far as concerns this particular group of amendments, I am truly amazed that we have had such a widespread debate. However, as I said at the beginning, this group--I start with Amendment No. 522 and refer also to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has moved amendments--consists simply of consolidating efforts. Nothing in the amendments which are before us, and have been before us for the past hour and a quarter, change the situation significantly. They consolidate and clarify.
	Among the matters which they clarify--I address the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith--are the provisions which refer to enhancing natural beauty. I say to the noble Lord, to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and to other noble Lords who have referred to not having "enhancing" in the wording that "enhancing" has been an aspect--albeit indirectly but clearly there--of AONBs since the 1949 Act when we started on this road. This group of amendments simply consolidates and clarifies that position and, in essence, puts those provisions into this Bill.
	The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would delete the word "enhancing", and that would take us back beyond 1949. I would not normally accuse the noble Lord, whom I know to be a forward-looking person, of taking us back before 1949 and before the basis on which our AONB mechanisms have run ever since. Therefore, I hope that he will not press that particular group of amendments.
	A number of other amendments to amendments which I have already moved are to follow. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or whoever is to speak from the Front Bench, is intending to take them severally. If that should be the case, we shall spend quite a lot of time on what essentially is a consolidating group of amendments. Some of the more fundamental issues which have been raised with regard to the creation of conservation boards and the powers of those boards arise in the next group of amendments. There are also several amendments in that group.
	I believe that the difficulty with this group is that we have had our cake and eaten it, or, rather, are about to eat it, in the sense that we have had a Second Reading debate but will now deal with each of the individual groups of amendments separately. If that is the will of the Committee, no doubt we shall have to succumb to it and deal with the amendments as they arise. However, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments that he has already moved.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his tolerance and understanding in allowing this debate to wander across a fairly wide field. However, given the circumstances in which this major extension to the Bill has been brought before us, there was an inevitability about that. Of course, the Minister rightly said that no one should have been surprised that these amendments were coming. We were not surprised and we are not unwelcoming. However, the pressure to bring the amendments forward has been around for a very long time.
	It is conceivable (but only just) that the amendments could not be designed for the Bill to be considered fully in another place. However, given the pressure, one might have thought that the amendments could have been designed in order to be available to this House so that we might have known by Second Reading what was coming. I accept that there is a procedural difficulty with that but the whole approach which brings forward these amendments in this way is outwith normal parliamentary procedure as I understand it.
	If that is the case, then I do not see why some marginal extension could not have been made so that the contents of those amendments were known when the Bill arrived in this House. That did not happen. Therefore, some flexibility at this stage was right and justified.
	I am extremely grateful to all those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, cited the support of the Local Government Association for these amendments. In fact, the detail of the amendments goes considerably beyond what the LGA conceives of as being appropriate because the LGA is quite clear that statutory planning powers should remain with local government and this Bill permits them to be transferred to a conservation board. That may seem to be only a small matter to some people but to others it is quite important.
	There is no great difference between myself and my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry in relation to these issues in principle. I said in my opening remarks that the whole concept of AONBs has been good and successful and there is no intention to detract from that. If the situation can be enhanced, then that should be done.
	There are points of detail in the amendments which require to be touched on and points of principle which required the sort of flexible debate which the Minister has so kindly allowed us to have.
	I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I certainly should not go along with my noble friend Lord Marlesford when he said that local government would allow the whole of the coast to be developed. Such a statement either reveals a prejudice or belittles local government. That is not the local government that I know.
	We have had a very good and full debate. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time. It was important to have the debate and we have had it. We must consider properly the other groups of amendments to deal with matters of detail on what is an extremely important matter. I do not expect that we shall repeat the sort of debate that has taken place up until now. I am most grateful to those who have taken part and grateful also to the Minister for his tolerance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 522A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 522, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 522B to 522D, as amendments to Amendment No. 522, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 522 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 523:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATION ORDERS
	(" .--(1) Where the Agency or the Council propose to make an order under section (Designation of areas), the Agency or the Council shall consult every local authority whose area includes any part of the area to which the proposed order is to relate.
	(2) Before making the order, the Agency or the Council shall then publish, in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of every such local authority, notice that they propose to make the order, indicating the effect of the order and stating the time within which and manner in which representations with respect to the proposed order may be made to the Agency or the Council (as the case may be), and shall consider any representations duly made.
	(3) An order under section (Designation of areas) shall not come into operation unless and until confirmed--
	(a) in the case of an order made by the Agency, by the Secretary of State, or
	(b) in the case of an order made by the Council, by the National Assembly for Wales,
	and, in submitting any such order to the Secretary of State or the Assembly, the Agency or Council shall forward to the Secretary of State or the Assembly any representations made by a local authority consulted under subsection (1) or made by any other person under subsection (2), other than representations to which effect is given by the order as submitted to the Secretary of State or the Assembly.
	(4) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may confirm an order submitted to him or it under this section either as submitted or with such modifications as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks expedient.
	(5) Before refusing to confirm an order under section (Designation of areas), or determining to confirm it with modifications, the Secretary of State shall consult the Agency and every local authority whose area includes any land to which the order as submitted, or as proposed to be modified, relates.
	(6) Before refusing to confirm an order under section (Designation of areas), or determining to confirm it with modifications, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Council and every local authority whose area includes any land to which the order as submitted, or as proposed to be modified, relates.
	(7) An order under section (Designation of areas) may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order under that section.
	(8) Without prejudice to the powers of the Agency or the Council to vary an order under section (Designation of areas), the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by order vary any order under that section made by the Agency or the Council; and subsection (1) applies to any order under section (Designation of areas) made by the Secretary of State or the Assembly by virtue of this subsection with the substitution for references to the Agency of references to the Secretary of State and for references to the Council of references to the Assembly.
	(9) It is the duty of the Agency and the Council to secure that copies of any order under section (Designation of areas) relating to England or, as the case may be, to Wales, are available for inspection by the public at all reasonable times--
	(a) at the office of the Agency or, as the case may be, the Council,
	(b) at the offices of each local authority whose area includes any part of the area to which the order relates, and
	(c) at such other place or places in or near that area as the Agency or, as the case may be, the Council may determine.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 523A:
	Line 4, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("metropolitan, county, unitary district authority or parish county").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment is designed to simplify the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would approve of this because he always complains about prolixity in legislation.
	The Bill as drafted contains a number of words that are unnecessary. It mentions,
	"such modifications as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks expedient".
	The first amendment in this group would simply remove those words, so that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may confirm an order either as submitted or with modifications. The other words are not needed, because sub-paragraph (5) says:
	"Before refusing to confirm an order ... or determining to confirm it with modifications",
	the Secretary of State shall--

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, can help me. I had thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 523A relating to local authorities.

Baroness Byford: My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith was speaking to Amendment No. 523AA. I shall speak to Amendment No. 523A and the others in the group. I apologise to the Committee for the errors in the amendment. The errors occurred before it came to this House. The amendment should read,
	"metropolitan, county, unitary, district authority or parish council".
	I apologise. It is not the fault of the House, but it is our fault. This matter is mentioned in the 1999 Act, but the 1992 Act did not include parish councils. I was trying to clarify which Act is relevant to this part of the Bill. We are anxious that parish councils should be included.
	I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 523B to 523F, which are fairly self-explanatory. In earlier debates we considered the word "expedient", about which we are not happy. For that reason we have suggested Amendment No. 523B. We have spoken to the other amendments already.

Lord Whitty: Such mis-drafting occasionally happens to the Government as well, so I shall not make a moral point. The typography does not appear to be at its best in this amendment. A comma is missing and the word "county" appears instead of "council". The noble Baroness is correct in saying that what is envisaged by the Government does not include parish councils, although it does include the other local authorities to which she has referred. The matter is quite open and probably within AONB areas, parish councils would be consulted and in all circumstances they would be able to contribute their views. However, the noble Baroness is correct in presuming that parish councils would not automatically be covered by this provision.
	Considering that we do not want to extend the list of statutory consultees, we would prefer not to refer specifically to parish councils because one then gets into arguments about other public authorities within an area. We consider that it is better not to limit it to the normal definition of local councils. I am not persuaded by the amendment, even if it were correctly printed.

Baroness Byford: Is the Minister saying that the Government's intention is not to include parish councils?

Lord Whitty: Parish councils would not be statutorily involved. However, they would normally be covered in the wider ability to make representations. I believe that is the correct balance.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: In Wales we do not have parish councils; we have community councils. In fact, there is no reference to them at all in this clause. Does that mean that the National Assembly does not have to take community councils into account as parish councils have to be taken into account in England? If the Minister cannot answer me now, perhaps he will respond later.

Lord Whitty: My understanding is that community councils are regarded as the equivalent of parish councils and therefore the same situation would apply.
	A number of other amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 523A. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, completed his introduction on Amendment No. 523AA. If so, he did not convince me that it adds anything substantial to what the Government propose.

Lord Dixon-Smith: With the greatest respect, the intention was not to add but to take away--and leave the same level of clarity, of course.

Lord Strabolgi: If Amendment No. 523AA is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 523B on grounds of pre-emption.

Lord Whitty: They do appear to be alternatives. Amendment No. 523B seeks to change "thinks expedient" to,
	"determines following consultation specified in sub-paragraph (5) below".
	That does not meet the point. Consultation does not apply in Wales. The Secretary of State confirms an order. So the cross-reference to that paragraph would not meet the point.
	In relation to Amendment No. 523AA, which seeks to subtract from the existing provisions, I am not convinced of that either. I feel that the present situation probably reaches the correct balance.
	Further amendments, certainly Amendments Nos. 523C and 523D, relate to wider consultation. Clearly landowners and others who are affected have the right to make representations. But to require the public authority to notify every landowner within the area likely to be directly or indirectly affected seems onerous and is unlikely to be feasible in many cases. Therefore the right to make representations remains.
	Amendment No. 523E would remove the possibility of a designation order, once made, ever being varied or revoked. I am not sure if that is what the noble Baroness intended. It appears rather restrictive and I would not be in favour of it. Clearly, changes in land use and other developments may lead to it being necessary to change an order.
	Amendment No. 523F simply changes the definition of where the orders could be inspected and would have the effect of cutting down the number of such places. Again, I am not sure that that was the intention but it would be the outcome. I am not convinced therefore that it would improve the situation and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue it.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. Amendment No. 523F relates to the specific place where the public would be able to inspect the orders, and the planning authority appeared to be the logical choice. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 523A.

Amendment No. 523A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 523, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 523AA to 523F, as amendments to Amendment No. 523, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 523 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 524:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:FUNCTIONS OF CERTAIN BODIES IN RELATION TO AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
	(" .--(1) The following provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (in this Part referred to as "the 1949 Act")--
	(a) section 6(4)(e) (duty of Agency or Council to give advice in connection with development matters),
	(b) section 9 (consultation in connection with development plan),
	(c) section 64(5) (consultation in connection with access agreements), and
	(d) section 65(5) and (5A) (consultation in connection with access orders),
	apply in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty as they apply in relation to National Parks.
	(2) In section 6(4)(e) of the 1949 Act as it applies by virtue of subsection (1), "appropriate planning authority" means a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and includes a local authority, not being a local planning authority, by whom any powers of a local planning authority as respects an area of outstanding natural beauty are exercisable, whether under the 1949 Act or otherwise.
	(3) Section 4A of the 1949 Act (which confers on the Council functions under Part II of that Act corresponding to those exercisable as respects England by the Agency) applies to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) for the purposes of their application to areas of outstanding natural beauty as that section applies for the purposes of Part II of the 1949 Act.
	(4) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty has power, subject to subsections (5) and (6), to take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty or so much of it as is included in their area.
	(5) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to limit the generality of subsection (4); but in so far as the provisions of this Part or of the 1949 Act confer specific powers falling within that subsection those powers are to be exercised in accordance with those provisions and subject to any limitations expressed or implied in them.
	(6) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this Part, subsection (4) has effect only for the purpose of removing any limitation imposed by law on the capacity of a local planning authority by virtue of its constitution, and does not authorise any act or omission on the part of such an authority which apart from that subsection would be actionable at the suit of any person on any ground other than such a limitation.
	(7) In this section "local planning authority" has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move Amendment No. 524.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 524, Amendment No. 524A:
	Line 26, leave out subsection (4).

Baroness Byford: We suggest that subsection (4) is left out. Tonight's discussions have shown that many Members of the Committee recognise that if subsection (4) stands some of the powers of the local planning authority may be overridden by the new functions of the AONBs. We have concerns about that and the amendment speaks for itself. I have reservations about the provision and I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We would welcome clarification because we understood that the management plans drawn up by the conservation agencies would inform all local plans. The development control function would then stay with the local planning authority.
	I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the reservations of the LGA--it wants the issue clarified--but I did not reply to the noble Lord's remark. Notwithstanding the LGA's desire for clarification, it remains supportive of the concept because its members make up the joint advisory committees. Those democratically elected parish and district county councillors are asking for the formation of the boards. If they have concerns about where the development control function will sit I hope that the Minister will be able to allay them.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Speaking in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, perhaps I, too, may ask the Minister for clarification. It is difficult to see how this clause fits in with the subsequent clause about the establishment of conservation boards. It would be helpful to know precisely what is the meaning behind the proposal. It appears to give an all-embracing power to the local planning authorities, which is then superseded by the subsequent section.

Lord Whitty: I am slightly surprised that the issue has raised such controversy as it virtually reproduces the existing law. Clearly, it does not of itself transfer any powers. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others appeared to suggest that powers were being transferred but none is switched. The clause gives local planning authorities the powers they need to take supportive action in relation to AONBs but it does not place on them duties and demands over and above what exists. The provision has been in the law since the passage of the 1949 Act, save that the reference to "conserving" was changed to "preserving" during the passage of the Environment Act 1995.
	The subsection (4) of the Government's Amendment No. 524, which the amendment intends to remove, re-enacts the provision of the 1949 Act which gives powers to local planning authorities containing all or part of an AONB, and subject to the specified qualifications quoted in the subsequent two subsections, to take all such action which appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty in their part of the AONB. In other words, the form of power given to the local authorities in relation to an AONB has existed since 1949 and has largely stood the test of time. Its relationship to the amendments in the next group--the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry--is that in certain circumstances some of the powers and activities can be agreed among the local authorities to be carried out by the conservation board. It does not alter the basic fact that the powers remain with the local authorities, as they have done since 1949. That does not affect the provisions of the next group of amendments, which provide for a conservation board in those areas where either the local authorities or the Secretary of State decide that that would be appropriate. It has nothing to do with the transfer of powers.

Lord Bridges: If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the purpose of subsection (4) of the new clause was to enable local authorities to take all such supporting action as is necessary for the purposes of conservation. I believe that that is a form of words much superior to that which now appears in the amendment. I believe that if the Minister reconsidered the matter and introduced his own words later it would be an improvement.

Lord Whitty: We never have closed minds. On the other hand, the expression that we are considering has been understood since 1949. One would have to think carefully about the form of words. If one tried to provide for a situation in which a conservation board had been created, that would be consequential on the next group of amendments, not here. As I have said, a conservation board will be established in only a few AONBs.

Lord Bridges: The noble Lord is too modest. The Minister has introduced an improvement. I find particular difficulty with the words "expedient" and "enhancing", not least because I live in a parish which was informed by the planning authority that it was to be enhanced, with the most dreadful results. That is an unfortunate word to use in this context.

Baroness Byford: At this stage perhaps the best course to take is to read what has been said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 524A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 524, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Amendment No. 524 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 525:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:Establishment of conservation boards
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may--
	(a) in the case of any existing area of outstanding natural beauty, or
	(b) in connection with the designation of any area as an area of outstanding natural beauty,
	by order establish a board (in this Part referred to as "a conservation board") to carry out in relation to that area the functions conferred on such a board by or under this Part.
	(2) Schedule (Conservation boards) (which relates to the constitution of conservation boards) has effect.
	(3) Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales considers it expedient for either of the purposes mentioned in section (General purposes and powers)(1), an order under subsection (1) may--
	(a) provide for the transfer to the conservation board to which the order relates of any of the functions of local authorities, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, or
	(b) provide for any function of a local authority, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, to be exercisable concurrently by the local authority and by the conservation board.
	(4) An order under subsection (1) may make further provision as to the constitution and administration of the conservation board to which it relates, including provision with respect to--
	(a) the appointment of members,
	(b) the removal and disqualification of members,
	(c) the conduct of members,
	(d) proceedings of the board,
	(e) the appointment of staff,
	(f) consultation with other public bodies,
	(g) records and documents of the board,
	(h) the provision of information by the board, and
	(i) complaints of maladministration.
	(5) Before making an order under subsection (1) in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty in England, the Secretary of State shall consult--
	(a) the Agency, and
	(b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(6) Before making an order under subsection (1) in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult--
	(a) the Council, and
	(b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(7) An order under subsection (1) which amends or revokes a previous order under that subsection establishing a conservation board--
	(a) may be made only after consultation with the conservation board to which it relates (as well as the consultation required by subsection (5) or (6)), and
	(b) in the case of an order revoking a previous order, may provide for the winding up of the board.
	(8) Subject to any order under subsection (9), where there is a variation of the area of an area of outstanding natural beauty for which there is or is to be a conservation board, the area of outstanding natural beauty for which that board is or is to be the conservation board shall be taken, as from the time when the variation takes effect, to be that area as varied.
	(9) Where provision is made for the variation of the area of an area of outstanding natural beauty for which there is or is to be a conservation board, the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by order make such transitional provision as he or it thinks fit with respect to--
	(a) any functions which, in relation to any area that becomes part of the area of outstanding natural beauty, are by virtue of the variation to become functions of that conservation board; and
	(b) any functions which, in relation to any area that ceases to be part of the area of outstanding natural beauty, are by virtue of the variation to become functions of a person other than that conservation board.").

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 525, I should like to speak also to the other amendments in the group. These amendments are of greater substance than the consolidated amendments in the previous group, but no doubt some of the same arguments will arise again. These amendments enable the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to establish conservation boards for individual AONBs. They would be required to consult the agencies and all affected local authorities. We would expect a significant level of local support to be demonstrated before establishing any board.
	There has been consistent and widespread support for the introduction of this provision since the Countryside Commission first presented its advice on the future protection of AONBs to the Government in 1998. All developments since then have reflected the reaction to that. I emphasise that the Government does not see a conservation board as the right solution for every AONB area. We are not interested in imposing conservation boards where they are not wanted locally. They are likely to be most appropriate for some of the larger AONBs which cross a number of local authority boundaries. We expect the first moves to establish a conservation board to come from those which manage a particular AONB at present.
	The boards would have two main purposes as set out mainly in Amendment No. 526: to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB; and, in recognition that conservation takes place to help both local people and visitors to enjoy the AONB, a duty to increase public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB. The long-standing "Sandford principle" in the context of the national parks would apply so that, in the event of a conflict between the two purposes, conservation would take precedence.
	The detailed functions of a conservation board would be set out in its establishment order. The functions transferred from the existing structure would have to be relevant to the AONB designation and the overarching purposes of AONB conservation boards. We have in mind activities such as managing rights of way, providing picnic sites and car parks and carrying out the usual countryside management services undertaken by local authorities. The Secretary of State is required to consult all relevant local authorities. Any establishment order, as was said earlier, will follow the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
	The conservation boards would have duties towards the economic and social well-being of their local communities similar to those of national park authorities.
	The basic membership arrangements which we propose are set out in the schedule in Amendment No. 539. That provides for local authorities to appoint at least 40 per cent of the members. The way in which this would work for an individual board is left to its establishment order. The remaining members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. In England, where we have parish members--for example, on national park authorities--the Secretary of State's appointees would also include parish members, who would make up at least 20 per cent of the total membership. The remaining appointments by the Secretary of State would cover a variety of interests, including conservation, land management and countryside recreation.
	Amendment No. 530 makes provision for grants to be made to the conservation boards. Local authorities may also be expected to contribute, as they do to the management of their AONBs now. But there is no provision for conservation boards to be given levying powers as some Members of the Committee are advocating.
	Many Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government have already increased considerably the budget going to AONBs via the Countryside Agency. I anticipate that we shall be able to announce a further increase later this year. I am pleased to say that my department, the Countryside Agency and the AONBs' association are working closely together to agree a method of allocating funds from the Countryside Agency to every AONB in England.
	I should refer briefly to Amendment No. 527A, which replaces Amendment No. 527. The sole changes are to insert references in subsections (3) and (4) to provide that those two subsections apply only to orders made by the Secretary of State, and not to those made by the National Assembly for Wales. The two subsections deal only with Westminster procedures. So that is a tidying up of my original amendment. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 525A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525AA:
	Line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 525AA seeks to remove paragraph (a) of subsection (3) from the Bill. Subsection (3) states:
	"Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales considers it expedient for either of the purposes mentioned in section (General purposes and powers)(1), an order under subsection (1) may--(a) provide for the transfer to the conservation board to which the order relates of any of the functions of local authorities, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question".
	We have had some debate about whether or not it is the intention that planning powers should be transferred to conservation boards. This particular paragraph clearly makes it plain that they can be. However, it is not only planning powers: one could conceive of highways interests also being transferred. Given the scale of activities like fly tipping and the problems that there are with waste nowadays, one could even conceive of some powers in relation to waste being transferred.
	I find myself wondering whether that is really what we want or whether it is desirable. If we simply take that little paragraph out, we are left with the preamble which I read. It would then state that an order may,
	"provide for any function of a local authority, so far as relating to the area of outstanding natural beauty in question, to be exercisable concurrently by the local authority and by the conservation board".
	It seems to me that that is the preferable and proper way of going forward in this particular matter.
	I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this point. He has on occasion, if I have been listening with sufficient attention, given the impression that powers are not to be transferred to conservation boards, but the fact is that this part of the new clause makes that possible. We do not think that the possibility is helpful and we do not think that it takes the Bill forward. We think it would be better to remove the provision. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: I have listened to the debate on this group of amendments on areas of outstanding natural beauty which the Government have cascaded onto the Bill at a late stage. I have to say that I am totally perplexed by this method of legislation. We are looking at government amendments without having had a proper opportunity fully to debate their implications.
	My mind goes back to 1975 and to another Bill introduced by a Labour government. It was the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, on which I happened in another place to lead for the opposition. At the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister--I think I am right in saying that it was that great and lovely man, Fred Peart, who was as distinguished in this House as he was in another place--cascaded into it a whole group of new provisions to abolish the tied cottage system. I shall not enter into argument about whether that was a good or a bad thing, but I can remember making representations to the government of the day and saying, "This is a totally unsatisfactory way of legislating. You cannot introduce a whole raft of new measures into a government Bill while that Bill is in full flood". The government of the day had the common sense to say--it is the difference between the way Fred Peart handled that Bill and the way the Government have handled this one--"We accept that. We will go back to the Floor of the House and have a Second Reading debate on the provisions to abolish the tied cottage". The Committee stage was suspended, we had a Second Reading debate on the provisions to abolish the tied cottage, we then came back to the Committee stage having had that full debate, and we proceeded from there. That is the way we should be proceeding over these measures, because they are just as important and fundamental and have just as large an effect on the countryside as those provisions to abolish the tied cottage.
	I have listened to the debate so far. In this group of amendments the Government are seeking to do all kinds of extraordinary things. They are seeking powers to allow Ministers to transfer to the boards any or all local government functions in the matter, and other extremely fundamental powers are being taken. I ask the Government to reconsider the position. Even if Ministers on the Front Bench have sympathy with what I am saying, I suppose it is too late, particularly at this stage of the legislative programme, to suggest to the business managers of this place, bearing in mind the absolutely criminal way in which they have managed the legislative programme this year--here we are, half way through October, and we are only reaching the end of the Committee stages of this and other Bills--that they ought to go back and have a Second Reading debate on these fundamental amendments to the Bill. I suppose that that is too much to ask.
	In my view, the business managers in this House have organised the legislative programme in a way that is totally inconceivable so great is its incompetence. I say that as a former government business manager in another place, so I do have some knowledge of managing the government programme. As I said, the way in which these people have organised this year's programme is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to Parliament and a disgrace to the whole democratic system in this country. I could not be more infuriated by this. It is all well and good for the Minister to attempt to laugh this off, but, with great respect to him, I think that he has very little experience of the parliamentary process. I happen to have been around this place for a long time and for much of that time I have been deeply involved in the management of government business. What is taking place now is a total disgrace.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may--

Lord Jopling: I should like to finish what I have to say. In all my 35 years in this building, I have never seen government legislation handled in a more incompetent way. The Government should be totally ashamed of themselves.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wished only to say that the Minister was laughing at me, not at the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I apologise for that.

Earl Peel: I should like to speak briefly after the contribution from my noble friend Lord Jopling. He has echoed what I said earlier, but he has put it in far more powerful terms, based on his long experience. I have to say that I agree entirely with what he has said. However, I shall not repeat the points I made earlier.
	Perhaps I may refer to my noble friend's amendment. The Minister stated that there was widespread support for these measures throughout local councils. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested something similar. All I can say is that, speaking as someone who comes from the north of England and living in an AONB, I do not believe for a moment that those views are shared. I do not know from where the idea has developed that every single council has been consulted on and approved of these measures. That simply is not true.
	Even if some councils do support the principles, I wonder whether they had any idea that such functions of local authorities could be transferred from them to these new boards. I would bet that they did not. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I had not intended to intervene in this debate because I have not taken part in it before. However, we do need to look at the situation in local authorities. It is quite extraordinary to see provided in this Bill quite specific arrangements to remove powers from local authorities and confer them to what, in other terms, might be described as development boards. We have seen such boards before.
	However, by doing this at a time when great reforms are being made--we have greatly reformed local government--we are about to give powers to conservation boards which are to be taken away from local authorities which in other legislation over previous months we have described as being about to take on more and more powers in different ways in order to have a greater effect over their local areas.
	The concern I feel relates to something on which my noble friend will touch in a minute--that is, the general way in which local people will be consulted about what is to be done in their name. These powers will be handed over by local authorities which, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, may not be too keen on having them transferred. Perhaps we should be taking far more account of the other measures and of the way in which local authorities are being reconstructed than has been so far evident.
	Perhaps I may refer back to Clause 26(4) which has been discussed. It seems to me that subsection (3)(a) of the amendment would enable the provisions in that clause to be carried out and implemented, and all the powers could go immediately to the conservation boards without further touching or impinging upon local authority consideration.
	I hesitated to intervene. Local authorities are being seriously undermined by what is proposed here. They may not perhaps be quite as excited and enthusiastic about this when they see what the implications are in the future.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, was under the impression that there was general approval for the basic proposal that there should be a board where the area of outstanding natural beauty covers more than one local authority area. But I think that I was misled in this belief because, quite clearly, having heard from the Country Landowners' Association and from the Local Government Association, there is some concern about the Government's proposals. In particular, the Local Government Association is concerned about the transfer of its planning powers to the conservation boards.
	I am here to represent in particular the interests of Wales. I believe that of the five areas of outstanding natural beauty currently designated in Wales only one extends beyond a single authority--that is, the Wye Valley, which crosses the border into England. That will pose a very interesting problem. It has had a joint advisory committee for some years and, as I understand it, it has worked well.
	I think that the Wye Valley AONB committee may well consider it advantageous to seek board status. In that event, it would involve a twin-track procedure for the relevant order involving the Secretary of State, this Parliament in England and the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with the new clause in Amendment No. 527A. It may well be a prolonged and difficult process, but I would hope not impossible if there is cross-border agreement. It is the kind of situation with which we are faced--potentially difficult but not impossible.
	The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, based in Welshpool, Powys, which keeps an eye on all the AONBs in Wales, has written to me to express concern that those areas which are limited to single local authorities may be disadvantaged financially by not having board status and the additional grants that will accompany that. That organisation foresees a three-tier system of national parks, conservation board AONBs and non-conservation board AONBs, each tier with rather fewer resources than the one above. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that, so far as concerns England, there would be an increase in resources for AONBs. However, he did not specify whether there would be more for conservation board AONBs than for non-conservation board AONBs. Perhaps the matter can be clarified. What happens in England will be indicative of what should happen in Wales.
	So far as concerns the smaller AONBs, amalgamation, certainly in the Welsh case, to achieve conservation board status will not be an option, because the Welsh AONBs are geographically remote from one another. The Ynys Man coastal area is separated by the Menai Straits and the Irish Sea from the Lleyn Peninsula AONB, and the Clwydian Hills are very far from Gower. I hope that the Government can give some reassurance that the non-conservation board AONBs will not be unduly disadvantaged. I am sure that many in England, like those in Wales, have low rateable values and cannot raise much money locally.
	The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales also points out that the conservation boards will have a duty to increase public understanding and enjoyment of their areas, and to foster the social and economic well-being of their communities. I think that the phrase "without significant expenditure" goes in there somewhere.
	These duties are not specifically attached to AONBs as they stand, although the local authorities and other interested bodies may be empowered to act in these respects. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and that he will comment on it. In other words, is there a difference in function, in duty, between the conservation board AONBs and the non-conservation board AONBs?
	Incidentally, Amendment No. 539 (after Schedule 10 to the Bill) is curiously drawn in that it prescribes, as I implied in an earlier intervention, parish council membership in England to the extent of 20 per cent of the conservation board. But there is no mention of community council membership in Wales. Community councils are the Welsh equivalent of parish councils. Are community councils to be ignored and have no prescribed part in any conservation board that may be set up in Wales, or is the situation different? The Minister implied that the situation regarding community councils in Wales would be the same as that for parish councils in England. I hope that that is the case.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Several Members of the Committee have implied that, under the arrangements whereby conservation boards might take on some of the powers of local authorities, matters would be worse for local people because there would be less accountability. If one asks local people who live in AONBs what kind of activities they are attempting to undertake and what difficulties they experience under the current arrangements, one example given is that they are trying to establish an economic development plan that ties in the production of local produce with the marketing of that produce. As matters stand, they may have to deal with five, six, seven or eight different local authorities and their various economic development plans and tourism strategies. Parish councillors, farmers and shopkeepers in an AONB who are trying to get together to implement a plan simply cannot go around so many local authorities putting their point of view. It is very time-consuming. They can see an advantage in the powers being vested in the conservation board so that it can get on with this sort of activity. It would fall into the category of social and economic well-being.
	The question has been asked whether there should be a straight transfer of powers from local authorities to conservation boards. We on these Benches would be the first not to wish to undermine the democratic accountability of local councils. However, if one looks at the situation from the point of view of those who are trying to exist and make a living at the same time as keeping their area's outstanding natural beauty truly outstanding, one sees that where they have to deal with many different local authorities, they have a considerable problem. They are hoping that the Bill will be able to overcome that problem. The point that the Minister needs to establish is whether the Bill will achieve that aim. Alternatively, will it undermine those districts and counties that already have plans of their own by taking away their functions?
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, touched on the issue of two-tier funding, which I believe I mentioned earlier and to which we shall return later when discussing the funding. At that stage I shall support the statements that he made.

The Earl of Selborne: I have to say that the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, really amount to a vote of no confidence in local government. One really has to decide whether the existing powers for local authorities to operate jointly in an advisory committee and to ensure that they present a face to the farmers, and others, who will use the new markets in such a way that they are user-friendly can be effective. The answer is that they can, because that is done in the best-regulated authorities.
	Do we really think that giving the Secretary of State powers when he or she thinks it "expedient" to pass these powers on to a conservation board--the majority of whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State--amounts to local accountability or an improvement on the situation? You only think so if you do not believe that local authorities can get their act together. That is why I say that what we have just heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench amounts to a lack of confidence in local authorities.
	I start with the premise that it is possible for local authorities to work together; indeed, it will be possible for them to work concurrently with conservation boards. I do not oppose the concept of conservation boards in principle, but I certainly oppose the idea that the Secretary of State, when he thinks it expedient, should be able to move any powers--whether it is planning, transport or anything else--to these conservation boards. I believe that I am right in saying that the Bill of my noble friend Lord Renton, which we considered a year or so ago, had some sort of clause stating that there had to be a broad measure of agreement that a conservation board should be established. Of course, my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong in that respect, but I see no such provision on the face of this amendment.
	Therefore, we have here some quite draconian powers that are given to the Secretary of State. This amounts to an assumption that local authorities, as constituted at present, will be so incapable of collaborating and so remote from those whom they seek to serve that it will be much better to move these functions lock stock and barrel to a conservation board, with the Secretary of State (and no one else) ultimately deciding that that is appropriate. That does not sound to me like a sensible way to proceed.

The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps it would assist the Committee if I were to speak to my Amendment No. 525CA, which appears on a separate piece of paper. It takes us back to the point of local consultation about the conservation boards. Indeed, it is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised earlier in debate. My noble friend Lord Selborne raised it in connection with a previous amendment, and my noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned the matter just a few moments ago.
	There seems to be some consultation about setting up the conservation boards, but before creating such an unelected and unaccountable quango, as the Government propose, it is desirable both in England and Wales that there should be contact with the interested parties; that is to say, those who live and work in the area. However, as I read the current proposals, there is no such provision. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 525CA, which would oblige Ministers and the Assembly to advertise the proposals for an order to establish a conservation board. That would be done in local newspapers so that local people would have some imput into the measure.
	While I am speaking to this group of amendments, I should like to mention Amendment No. 530 on the subject of finance. I believe that we come to the crux of the problem here. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry is looking into the future with rose-tinted glasses if he thinks that there will be more money available. The Minister said that there are proposals to increase the budget in the next financial year. However, I cannot see that continuing for ever. I envisage the conservation boards being established with almost the same powers as national parks but without their support and finance. One of the great flaws in the scheme is the financial flaw. Great hopes and great expectations have been raised, but there will not be the finance to see the scheme through.

Lord Whitty: This has been another wide-ranging debate. First, I shall make a few general points as a number of accusations have been levelled at the Government both in terms of procedure and what we have told the Committee.
	The LGA has consulted all local authorities. Its official document states:
	"The LGA believes there is a wide degree of consensus or cross-party support for the inclusion of measures to give statutory backing to AONB management in this Bill. The proposed new clauses",
	which include the one we are discussing,
	"will enable local authorities to discharge their management duty through the statutory conservation boards. Conservation boards will be particularly suited to large and administratively complex AONBs shared by a number of local authorities".
	Therefore I believe that local authorities have indicated that they support this option. They have recognised the problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred in terms of local people and local businesses not having a single point of contact on issues related to an AONB.
	The benefits of having a single board were ably spelt out when we discussed the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I think that there is pretty wide support among local authorities for having such a body. That is not to say that local authorities do not have reservations. They want to be reassured that they will not be trampled all over and that the finance will be available. They also want to be reassured that they will have agreed any powers which are transferred to the body we are discussing. It is important to recognise that powers which are transferred will have been agreed locally. The views of local authorities must be taken fully into account in any such transfer. As regards planning--

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister tell us exactly where it states in the amendments that, in effect, a local authority would be able to say no to any transfer of powers to which it did not agree?

Lord Whitty: It is probably not true to say that a single local authority would be able to do that. However, local authorities within an area could do so as the Secretary of State would have to take a view of the local authorities concerned. If there were six or seven local authorities and one objected, I concede that there may be a problem. However, the central point is that local authorities' views will be fully taken into account and transfers of powers will therefore be decided locally. There is no intention to transfer planning powers. Any powers which are transferred must be relevant to the role of the conservation agency and the AONB. There is not an open-ended ability to transfer powers from local authorities.

Lord Greaves: I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer; namely, that it is obviously sensible for some powers to be transferred in some circumstances. However, in the Bill as drafted, what is to prevent the Secretary of State deciding to transfer, for example, development control powers? What is to prevent the Secretary of State overriding the views of local authorities in the area, or a majority of those views? Where is it stated in the Bill that that consent is required?

Lord Whitty: The measure states that local authorities must be fully consulted and that the transfer of powers must be agreed locally. As regards planning consents, there is obviously a deep misapprehension among the Committee that the intention is to transfer planning powers. We have always said that there is no such intention and that local authorities understand that. Those who advocate the creation of conservation boards understand that. I shall consider whether it is necessary to make that more explicit. However, I believe that we have made clear our intention in relation to planning powers. Indeed, one would have hugely more complicated provisions were one to be in the position of transferring planning powers. The simple ability to transfer any power would not cover the situation.

Lord Greaves: I am prepared to accept what the Minister says as to intention. The worry is that the precise wording of the proposed subsection (3)(a) appears to go far beyond what the Minister says. Will the Minister consider a change of wording, perhaps on Report, to allay those fears?

Lord Whitty: If that wording is not clear enough, I shall consider the matter further. But it is clear that no one has argued for the transfer of planning powers in the sense referred to here.
	Funding is of central concern to local authorities. The conservation boards are not able to levy money. I said that the Countryside Agency is working with the AONB association on a fairer funding model for all AONBs. We have increased that budget substantially already via the Countryside Agency. Therefore, there are more resources available here. We hope to announce the increase shortly.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, there is no desire to create two classes of local authority. There will be no discrimination between those AONBs which decide, with the Secretary of State's agreement, to have a conservation board and those which do not. The allocation of such moneys would be via the Countryside Agency on the basis of need.
	Although there may be some concern among local authorities, in principle they want these powers. I indicated that the reassurance is already in place to deal with the anxieties of local authorities.
	The proposition has been around for some time. I do not accept any of the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. His analogy is interesting. We have had outside pressures to introduce these clauses. Having failed to pass the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, last year, I can imagine the furore among all interested parties were we to allow again a piece of countryside protection legislation to go through without taking the opportunity to increase the provisions for the AONBs. I believe that we would be subject to considerably greater criticism.
	As regards the point at which we have introduced the clause, it reflects a clear commitment made to the Front and Back Benches on all sides of another place that we would so do in this House. Convention means that we could not introduce the measure before Second Reading. We are, therefore, introducing it at the first possible opportunity.
	As regards analogies to the 1974 legislation, I find it most unlikely that the then Conservative opposition had requested the then government to introduce provisions on tied cottages. However, in this case we face a united all-party request for these provisions. We have brought them forward so far as concerns this Chamber at the earliest opportunity. I believe that we have had reasonable scope for debate in Committee. No doubt we shall return to some issues on Report. At the moment, I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment.

Baroness Hanham: Would the Minister be kind enough to draw to my attention the provision in the amendments that says that planning powers will not be passed to the boards? The amendments say that any of the functions of local authorities can be passed to the boards. They do not exclude planning powers. If planning powers are not to be passed, that should be specified in the Bill. It seems that the powers to enable litter to be picked up, waste prevented and perhaps a road built are the only ones that will be passed. Any visitor centre to be built would require planning permission. Either the planning powers would have to be passed to the board or they would be kept by the local authority and the conservation board would have to make an application to it as the planning authority. That is an important issue. I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure us as to where it will be specified that planning powers will not, should not or shall not be passed to the conservation board.

Lord Jopling: I should like to say a few words about the Minister's response to my earlier remarks. I am sorry to say that his justification for the Government's handling of the legislation in this way tonight was pretty lame. The effects of the amendments on the countryside will be far greater than the example of the closed shop that I quoted earlier. However, I realise that the Government are intent on pushing the provision through within a few weeks of the end of the Session. I have made my point and I shall leave it at that.
	I come back to remarks made by two noble Lords. First, my noble friend Lord Selborne made a point about last year's Private Member's Bill of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry agrees that it was on my initiative in Committee that he agreed to include a provision that such boards would be established only if there was general local consent. I remember talking to him about that and speaking about it in Committee. He accepted that point at the time. My recollection is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Selborne.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he could see nothing that went further than the provision in Amendment No. 525 (5)(b), with regard to England, and subsection (6)(b), with regard to Wales, that there should be consultation with,
	"every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of the area of outstanding natural beauty".
	I think I heard the Minister say that the Government were prepared to reconsider the issue in the next week or so, before Report stage. I am grateful for that. The most crucial aspect of my noble friend's Bill last year was that there should be broad local consent. That is also crucial for this Bill. We need to add a provision that the Government will proceed only if there is broad agreement. I do not know whether a figure such as two-thirds of the local authorities in the area should be specified, but there needs to be broad agreement that such boards ought to be set up.
	I should have preferred to add a paragraph (c) to subsections (5) and (6) stating that consultation should also take place with more specified local people; for example, with regard to the farming industry and to any other organisations which appeared to have a crucial interest in the area. That may not be possible. However, I believe that it is absolutely essential that on Report we have an amendment which states that the order can proceed only provided that broad agreement is reached by the local authorities that the organisations should be set up.

The Earl of Carnarvon: I wonder whether the Minister would consider bringing back on Report in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) some wording regarding the function of local authorities apart from planning. That would go a long way towards satisfying many people in local government who see a clash of identities between the board and the local authorities involved. That will obviously require some redrafting.
	I find the words "so far as relating" difficult to understand without a reference to the function. It is the planning function which worries most people.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Perhaps I may start by responding to some of the comments made about my Private Member's Bill which I introduced into this House a year ago and which, indeed, would have made rather more progress if it had not been so strongly opposed by some Members of my own party. That is something that is becoming a little familiar tonight.
	First, I say to my noble friend Lord Selborne: yes, indeed, my noble friend Lord Jopling is absolutely right. After consultation with him, I included wording to specify that, before a conservation board is established with the agency, there should be consultation not only with the Countryside Agency but with affected local authorities. However, before making an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is a broad measure of agreement among those consulted that a conservation board should be established. It is possible that the Minister would like to consider adding wording along those lines before Report stage.
	That said, I now want to speak to my own amendment--Amendment No. 536A--concerning finances. I believe that we have moved on to that subject. However, before I do so, I must repeat that I speak not only as chairman of, I believe, the only existing conservation board on which 14 local authorities are represented but also as a member of the executive committee of the AONB Association, which now contains every single AONB in England and Wales--41 if the Wye Valley is considered as one; 42 if it is considered as two, part in Wales and part in England. I know of no one on either of those boards who is deeply worried about the dragons and demons that some of my noble friends have been seeing in the past hour or so.
	Of course, it is always possible to envisage that a great deal of power will be transferred by an over-mighty Secretary of State. However, the general feeling among AONBs all around the country and among joint advisory committees on which many local authorities sit is that this broad proposal by the Government is now a necessary step forward. It has been talked about for more than 10 years and it has been discussed in both Houses of Parliament.
	I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he expresses surprise at some of the nightmares. Of course, as will any Minister, the noble Lord will reconsider the drafting in the light of what has been said. However, it is only fair to say that these amendments were published at the end of July. They have been available for the whole of August and September and up until now in October. I believe that they were published on 26th July.
	The only worry that I have heard from either of the bodies on which I sit, one of which I chair, is that which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, outlined; that is, the worry about what will be the financing position of those AONBs which do not become conservation boards. Are they to be regarded very much as second-class citizens? If so, how can their position be improved? It is not that they do not want this legislation but they want to know how their position can be improved.
	That takes me on to the question of finances, which is by no means the only issue which we are discussing at this stage. However, we have reached the point at which it is in order to discuss it. My noble friend Lord Caithness said he thought I was rather over-optimistic in thinking that there would be more money available. At the moment, the joint advisory committees have no security or certainty of any money at all. They have nothing. If they are funded by anyone, it is by the Countryside Agency in partnership with the constituent local authorities. The Countryside Agency may give them some money or it may not. But, as I said in my earlier speech, the worry that they all have is that, when the pressures are on local authority finances, one of the first things to be cut is the money for conservation, because, sadly, in the scheme of things, it is not the top priority.
	Under the financing which the Secretary of State proposes in this Bill, it is quite clear that there will be, as for the national parks, a regular contribution coming from the Secretary of State and the Department for the Environment every year. On that basis, staff can be hired; rangers and conservation officers can be employed.
	In the case of my own board, to which one noble Lord referred rather kindly--and I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Peel--our present position is that as of 1st April next year, which is only five months away, we do not know whether we shall have any money at all. We really do not know because our present arrangements with the local authorities and the Countryside Agency, as a generally successful voluntary conservation board set up by the local authorities and the Countryside Agency by agreement in 1991-92, come to a finality on 31st March, which is six months' time. As chairman, I am deep in negotiations to ensure that there is enough money for us to continue. That is precisely the course which Lord Nathan embarked upon three years ago when he wisely asked me to take over chairmanship of the board.
	And so how can we, on the conservation board, with all we are trying to do on the South Downs, in terms of landscape enhancement, for example, in partnership with local farmers, employ good rangers and good officers when they do not know whether they will have a contract of employment with my board on 1st April? That is an essential point about why the AONBs, represented by their JACs or whatever--most of which have a majority of local authority councillors on them--so strongly support the proposals which the Government are now putting forward.
	Therefore, I have tabled an amendment which deals with the financing--Amendment No. 536A, which is lifted from my Private Member's Bill--and it represents almost exactly the funding of national parks. Members of the Committee will know that the funding of national parks comes 75 per cent from the Secretary of State for the Environment. He looks at a three-year plan for the national parks; discusses it with national parks officers and the Countryside Agency; the three-year funding is agreed. The balance of 25 per cent is a levy on the local authorities.
	The Bill as put forward by the Minister and the Government does not include that levy on the local authorities. A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there was no intention of placing a levy on the local authorities. I believe that that is wrong, because, as so many of my noble friends have said, the local authorities need to be involved. I do not believe that all the money should come from the centre. If the local authorities are involved at the levy level of 25 per cent, that helps them to keep their finger on the pulse of what is happening. It is true also that he who pays the piper plays the tune and I should not like to see the local authorities totally divorced from the funding for the reason that many Members of the Committee have advanced in the last hours; that is, to make certain that the local authorities feel, to a large degree, that the conservation board is theirs, that it is part of them, not a foreign, alien structure. To make them pay part of the money is perhaps a funny way to do it, but I am sure that it is right.
	Therefore, I hope that the Government, in reconsidering parts of this Bill, will reconsider the possibility of putting the funding of the conservation boards, if and when they are constituted, at the same level as the national parks, so that they receive 75 per cent from the department and 25 per cent as a levy from the local authorities. That works extremely well with the Chichester Harbour Board, in Sussex, which is financed on exactly that basis. The interest of the local authority is maintained and it has made the Chichester Harbour Board a successful authority. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne: It is one thing to support conservation boards in principle, as I certainly do, but it is quite another to say that measures proposed in these amendments, be they government amendments or those of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, are appropriate.
	We have not fully discussed the requirement to ensure that the Secretary of State is not to use his powers to move statutory planning functions over to the conservation boards. The Minister has been frank and explicit which will reassure us. However, for those of us who, in the words of my noble friend Lord Renton, are slaying dragons that do not exist--it is our job to anticipate dragons that may appear--we should ask the question: if there is no intention to use the powers, why not say so? I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point. I also hope that the Minister will not be swayed by the arguments that conservation boards should have powers to levy funds from local authorities under terms set down by the Secretary of State.
	I understand that the conservation boards want that because they find that they are unsuccessful in negotiating with local authorities. However, they must collaborate with the local authorities. If they find that the system does not work, it may be because they have not persuaded the local authorities of the wisdom of their expenditure, or it may be because there needs to be a better understanding among all parties. I simply do not believe that to take the matter out of local authority accountability and to give levy-raising powers to conservation boards will help local democracy one little bit, nor do I believe that it will help the conservation boards to acquire the support that they need.

Earl Peel: I entirely agree with my noble friend. Perhaps I can return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton in relation to demons. It is all very well to say that local authorities or individuals have visions of demons, but they have to be dismissed if we are to go forward with any degree of confidence with regard to AONBs. My noble friend Lord Renton has a whole series of items that are designed to deal with demons under Amendment No. 539A. Quite clearly he is as concerned about demons as the rest of us.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: With great respect, I have not yet had a chance to speak to Amendment No. 539A. It takes up the point stressed by the noble Earl himself about more local authority representation on boards, with which I wholly agree. It is not a demon; it is a matter of numbers.

Baroness Byford: On these Benches, we support the second part of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I believe that it makes sense that the Secretary of State may make grants to the conservation boards for such amounts and on terms that the Secretary of State thinks fit. I had assumed that that would be done through the SSAs in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.
	I do not follow my noble friend's line of thought on the first point in the amendment, that the conservation boards should be able to issue levies on councils. I have reservations in that regard. While I support the second part of the amendment, I struggle to support the first part for the reasons expressed by other noble Lords.
	We are in a slight muddle. We have jumped and missed out swathes of amendments. My noble friend was quite right to move his amendment because that came in with the Government's amendment and I have no difficulty with that. But somehow we have jumped around. Is it possible to come back to some semblance of order and proceed from there? I do not mean to be difficult.

Lord Whitty: I heartily agree that we are in a slight muddle, though many of the amendments interrelate. My understanding is that I formally moved Amendment No. 525 and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moved an amendment to it. We have spread ourselves rather widely since then, incorporating the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We have been trying to put to rest some of the demons and, as the midnight hour approaches, I should perhaps try again otherwise they may come back to haunt us.
	The worries of local authorities and others about the establishment of these boards fall under three headings: first, finance; secondly, how far consultation will go and who will be involved in the decision; and, thirdly, the powers to be transferred. On consultation, let me make it clear that the requirement on the Secretary of State under Amendment No. 525 to consult before making an order also implies a requirement on him to act reasonably in the face of that consultation. It would therefore be extremely unlikely and certainly subject to serious challenge were all local authorities in the area, or even the majority of them, to object to such a move and then the Secretary of State to impose it. It is intended to be a consensual arrangement to apply in areas where the majority of people already involved with conservation and AONBs want a new body to carry out the duties and where the multiplicity of bodies at the moment is a problem. There are a number of the 41 AONBs where that situation applies.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for introducing a slightly corrective note in regard to people's apprehensions. By and large people are looking for measures to provide an option to establish such a board. But local authorities will be consulted and will not be able to be ignored following that consultation.
	There is clearly misunderstanding in relation to the powers to be transferred. The powers involved relate only to the functions of the AONB management. The idea that wide-ranging powers, including full development planning powers, can be transferred is wrong. We are not talking about national park type powers; we are talking of the powers of the AONB management.
	It appears that in relation to planning and other areas such as those raised by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, greater clarity is needed. I shall certainly take away the view expressed on all sides of the Committee that the planning situation is not clear and perhaps look at one or two other areas to see whether anything can be done between now and Report to clarify the position. Clearly, it was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others that planning could be transferred wholesale under this provision. That was not the intention and if that appears to be possible, we want to ensure that that is no longer the case.
	To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, some of the increased money for conservation to which I referred will come via the countryside agencies to the AONBs. We have already referred to the discussion taking place between the countryside agencies and the AONB committees. That money will not come via the SSA; it will be a specific grant either via the agencies or direct to the new board. I hope that clarifies the position. However, there is more money forthcoming and therefore some of the problems in relation to resources, lack of stability and lack of forward planning to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred, should be overcome by that provision.
	However, it would not be helpful to take the noble Lord's other point in his Amendment No. 539A--I am not sure that I should refer to it at this time. I believe that the levy could undermine the essential requirement that the conservation board would need to co-operate in a constructive and pro-active way with the local authorities. There is the danger that local authorities would see the payment of the levy as handing over all responsibility to the board and therefore leaving all aspects of conservation to the board. We would rather that such a passive financial relationship, which might lead to resentment on both sides, was not the basis for funding. That should be as I have described.
	I return to the only amendment to my amendment to have been moved. I have indicated our intention as regards planning transfers and said that I shall look to see whether we can clarify it. I hope that our intentions are clear and that that amendment will not be needed.

Lord Judd: As regards planning, my noble friend has listened patiently to an interesting debate on the other side of the Committee. However, will he assure some of us who are deeply concerned about the danger of erosion in AONBs that what matters above all is that where it is decided that there is an area of outstanding natural beauty there must be a management system dedicated to the preservation of that AONB as a priority above all else?

Lord Whitty: I believe that I can give that assurance, except for the word "a" in the sense that in some cases the local authority or authorities will be adequately carrying out that task--they may want to do so--and can be trusted in their present form to continue to do so. In other circumstances, we will need to create a new body and will want local authorities to act in conjunction with it. However, the responsibility must be undertaken and it is the Government's objective to ensure that that not only preserves but enhances the status and protection of AONBs. That is our objective and the other measures are simply means to achieving it. I hope that that is widely understood in the Committee.

Lord Marlesford: I understand that we have not yet discussed Amendment No. 528 but that we shall come to it later. I understand that it is all about planning.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is right procedurally. Whether that is what happens is entirely another matter.

Lord Dixon-Smith: For some time now I have been trying to rise to wind up the debate. I was beginning to think that it must be Halloween because we seem to have raised a number of bogies and boggles tonight.
	It would be superfluous to try to run through what once again has been a wide-ranging debate. Such a debate, if it does nothing else, indicates the dangers of the procedures in which we are indulging to get the legislation on the statute book. We are not opposed to getting the consequences of this on the statute book, but we question a number of points of detail, some of which involve fundamental principles.
	The Minister, in his second summing up, has gone a long way towards answering many of the concerns, in particular those relating to the transfer of powers and the ways in which conservation boards might be introduced. The problem is that we must deal with what is on the face of the Bill and not with the Government's conscious intention which is not available to us until the Minister has explained it and we can later read it in Hansard. I am confident that we shall need to return to this issue on Report. Perhaps at that stage the Minister will bring forward amendments which will satisfy us but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 525B and 525C, as amendments to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525CA:
	Line 45, at end of subsection (6) insert--
	("( ) In addition to their duties to consult under subsections (5) and (6) above the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be, shall before making an order publish in The London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of the area of outstanding natural beauty, notice that they propose to make the order, indicating the effect of the order and stating the time within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the proposed order may be made to them, and shall consider any representations duly made.").

The Earl of Caithness: The purpose of Amendment No. 525CA is purely to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the points that I made. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl's amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult publicly by publishing an announcement in the London Gazette and in other local newspapers. We would expect wide non-statutory consultation to take place before an establishment order is made. That would be more likely to be led by the agency rather than the Secretary of State direct, since the agency would be the statutory adviser and would do the preliminary work. Clearly, this provision would require a very substantial information programme before consultation could take place. Therefore, the objectives of the clause would have to be met by the agency in conducting its consultation, but probably not in quite the terms of the amendment. Although I do not consider it appropriate to add the amendment, I assure the noble Earl that there would be an opportunity for consultation and information on the basis of which that consultation could take place.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the response of the Minister. We have the same problem as that identified by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith; namely, we have to read the Bill as opposed to the Minister's mind. What requirement is placed on the Countryside Agency to consult before making a designation for a conservation board? Is this in legislation, or is it assumed good practice?

Lord Whitty: There is good practice in relation to consultation which is currently being updated by the Cabinet Office. We are talking about the pre-proposal period. That consultation is not normally set out in the primary legislation which governs the making of such regulations. Nevertheless, it is fairly standard practice and the requirement to set out the information is part of that.

The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525CA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 525D and 525E, as amendments to Amendment No. 525, not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, Amendment No. 525F:
	Line 68, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an authority").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment deals with what I suspect is a slip of the draftsman's pen. If one looks in line 68 of Amendment No. 525, which deals with what happens to functions relating to an area that ceases to be part of an AONB, one sees,
	"the variation to become functions of a person".
	I believe that "person" should be "authority", and this short and simple amendment is designed to give effect to that. I do not believe that functions would ever be transferred back to a person. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I undertake to look at the matter. My understanding is that in this respect "person" includes a corporate person, and it may well include an authority but not exclusively. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Dixon-Smith: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 525F, as an amendment to Amendment No. 525, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Amendment No. 525 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 526:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:GENERAL PURPOSES AND POWERS
	(" .--(1) It is the duty of a conservation board, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to--
	(a) the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty, and
	(b) the purpose of increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the area of outstanding natural beauty,
	but if it appears to the board that there is a conflict between those purposes, they are to attach greater weight to the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a).
	(2) A conservation board, while having regard to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the area of outstanding natural beauty, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(3) Sections 37 and 38 of the Countryside Act 1968 (general duties as to the protection of interests of the countryside and the avoidance of pollution) apply to conservation boards as they apply to local authorities.
	(4) The powers of a conservation board include power to do anything which, in the opinion of the board, is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to--
	(a) the accomplishment of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), or
	(b) the carrying out of any functions conferred on it by virtue of any other provision of this Part or by virtue of any enactment not contained in this Part.
	(5) The powers conferred on a conservation board by subsection (4) do not include--
	(a) power to do anything in contravention of any restriction imposed by virtue of this Part in relation to any express power of the board, or
	(b) power to raise money (whether by borrowing or otherwise) in a manner which is not authorised apart from that subsection,
	but the things that may be done in exercise of those powers are not to be treated as excluding anything by reason only that it involves the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights.
	(6) Schedule (Supplemental and incidental powers of conservation boards) (which relates to the supplemental and incidental powers of conservation boards) has effect.
	(7) An order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) may--
	(a) make further provision with respect to the supplemental and incidental powers of the conservation board to which it relates or the limits on those powers, including provision relating to the borrowing of money, and
	(b) provide for any enactment which relates to or limits the supplemental or incidental powers or duties of local authorities or relates to the conduct of, or transactions by, local authorities to apply in relation to the conservation board with such modifications as may be specified in the order.").

Lord Whitty: I formally move the amendment.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, Amendment No. 526A:
	Line 4, leave out ("and enhancing").

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 526A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 526B, 526C, 526D, 526E and 526F. I can speak briefly on Amendment No. 526A. The amendment is about enhancing AONBs. On these Benches we support the enhancing of areas of outstanding natural beauty. The question is, who actually pays for that enhancing? Our debate has ranged so widely that the Minister may say he has covered the topic already. I shall be happy if he does.
	Amendment No. 526B seeks to leave out the words "seeks to foster" and to insert "support". The word "support" is stronger than "seeks to foster". It is much more direct. I hope the Government will consider that.
	Amendment No. 526C seeks to leave out the words "beauty" to "and so". That removes the expression,
	"without incurring significant expenditure".
	That is really a value judgment. I wonder if the Government intend it so to be. Who decides what is or is not a significant expense? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
	Amendment No. 526D seeks to leave out subsection (4). As other Members of the Committee have said, if that subsection is kept in the Bill, it gives the conservation board the power to do anything. I should like greater clarification on that. After our discussions about the powers of local authorities and their responsibilities, those are huge powers to give the board.
	Amendment No. 526F is a probing amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bridges: I have a brief comment to make on Amendment No. 526. It seems to me that the first two subsections are in a sense contradictory. The subsections lay out the duty of the conservation board. Subsection (1)(a) states quote uncontroversially,
	"the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty".
	That makes it a more important paragraph than paragraph (b) which follows. But subsection (2) states that the,
	"conservation board ... shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities".
	That is extremely broadly defined. It would seem to me to be capable of overriding subsection (1) altogether. What would happen if it was proposed to have a large commercial development at the very edge of the area in question? That would be permitted by the clause. It would also be permitted by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, Amendment No. 526B.
	I suggest to the Committee that the great attraction of these areas is the absence of development. So far as possible, that should be maintained. I cite as examples two cases in foreign countries where the absence of development in national parks is actively promoted. In the United States, when I lived there, I spent several summers in the Rocky Mountain national park, west of Denver. It is the most beautiful place. I came to understand the rather interesting rules of the national park which stemmed from President Theodore Roosevelt, who was the father of the national park movement in the United States. The rules had the effect of giving the national park authority the ability to have the first choice of purchasing any property which came on the market. If, for example, you inherited from your mother and father, who had lived there all their lives, a small shop, you had to have permission from the national park authority to have the property transferred to your name. That helped to preserve the beauty of the place from the development of hamburger stands and other things which are such a feature of the American way of life.
	The second example occurred in Italy. A few years ago I went as a member of a group, the International Dendrology Society, to visit the Abruzzo National Park in central Italy. It was one of the first national parks in Italy and it is in a very beautiful area, high up in the Apennines, with many native beech forests. When the national park was created a good many of the existing commercial activities were gradually closed down; for example, the commercial exploitation of timber and certain small industries which stemmed from that. At first there was a great uproar in the local community because people felt that their livelihood was being taken away from them. But now, 30 or 40 years later, it is clearly seen by the inhabitants that it was an extremely wise development, because the people coming into the national park from outside create more prosperity than had existed there with the original commercial activities.
	Therefore, I suggest that there is a choice to be made. The present words of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and of the amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 526B, duck the question. We have a choice. Do we or do we not allow the commercial development of areas of outstanding natural beauty? I think that we should adopt a rather more reserved attitude than is permitted under the amendments as they stand.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has just said. One of the difficulties is that in essence there is a feeling--I found this with my Private Member's Bill last year--that the social and economic well-being of the communities should be included in the objectives so that the Bill is not just seen as a conservation Bill--a Bill to protect wild flowers and fauna and to help the farmers--but as a Bill generally to improve the economic standing of the area. But because, for just the reasons given by the noble Lord, people are rather frightened about that, the Government have included the words,
	"but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so".
	I was under exactly the same pressure when I brought forward my Private Member's Bill last year and I succumbed to it. I included those rather weasel words. However, it means that one is behaving like Saint Augustine--I am willing to give up sin, but not yet. It is a compromise that does not make a very great deal of sense and it has been carried forward into the Bill as it stands.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Noble Lords who sat through the discussions on the Local Government Bill about the purposes of sustainable development will know that there was a lengthy debate around the balance between economic, social and environmental well-being, at the end of which the House generally concluded that all three were important and that in different areas the balance would be different. Clearly, in AONBs the balance would be heavily on the environmental side. But to go beyond what is said in the Bill in terms of fostering economic and social well-being would be wrong. While I can understand the wish to support economic activity--in many cases it might well be the right thing to do--AONBs vary considerably in their capacity to be developed in economic terms. Some cry out to have just their qualities of outstanding natural beauty preserved.
	The Bill as drafted is probably as satisfactory as we are going to get in terms of a national prescription. I do not think that we should weight it any more heavily on the economic side, although I would certainly underline that without the economic side it will be difficult for people to carry on the conservation of those very features which are so important to them.

Lord Marlesford: I support what has just been said. There are many examples of national parks getting it right. There has been conservation and there has at the same time been the fostering and development of social and economic advance. It is perfectly possible to do both.
	Indeed, what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is very interesting. The obvious analogy here is that, traditionally, when a plan is put in place to bypass a small town, the local traders worry that they will lose business. In general, the reverse proves to be true. There is nothing inconsistent between conservation and the fostering of economic and social benefit.

Lord Whitty: As regards Amendment No. 526A, we had a lengthy debate earlier on "enhancing". The amendment broadly raises the same point and we would continue to insist that "enhancing" has been in place throughout and should remain in place. The provision is not open-ended; there is "enhancing" only to fulfil the purpose of the AONB board or other management agency. For that reason, I do not believe that the word "enhancing" would have the kind of frightening effect envisaged earlier by the noble Baroness and others.
	Amendments Nos. 526B and 526C seek to alter the provision in relation to economic and social matters. I recognise that these are delicate points and that the balance to be struck may be different between areas. Nevertheless, the economic and social well-being of the area and of those who live there forms part of the success or otherwise of the AONB's management. That is why we have employed almost the same phraseology as that covering "economic and social responsibilities" which was put on to the national park authorities in the Environment Act 1995.
	The formula has worked reasonably well in the national parks. Although it does not allow them to spend significant amounts of money, it does mean that that dimension of their work must be taken into consideration, as well as underlining the need for close co-operation with neighbouring authorities. For those reasons, I should prefer to see the wording remain as it stands.
	Amendment No. 526D would remove the Government's proposal to give conservation boards a general power to do anything to facilitate the accomplishment of their purpose. This power is properly expressed and is based closely on similar powers given to the national park authorities under the terms of the Environment Act 1995. Furthermore, the power is properly circumscribed by the following subsection, subsection (5) of the Government's new clause. The general power is firmly focused on the purposes we propose to give to conservation boards by means of this legislation. Again, it has not been put in place as an open-ended power, but it is important that such a general power is conferred.
	So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 526E and 526F, I am not sure that I understood entirely why the noble Baroness wished to pursue those changes. On Amendment No. 526E which relates to the proposed limitations on subsection (5) of government Amendment No. 526, although I agree that the formula is a little complicated in our amendment, I cannot see that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would significantly improve the situation. Amendment No. 526F appears to be designed to limit further the powers of conservation boards. If that is the intention, I do not see the justification for it. If that is not the intention, I am not convinced that we would need the amendment.
	I regret that I cannot be more positive about these amendments, although I recognise that some anxieties needed to be addressed. I hope that my comments will have helped to reassure the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. As I said earlier, the last two amendments in the group were probing amendments because we have here a circular argument as regards exactly how this proposal will work. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 526A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 526B to 526F, as amendments to Amendment No. 526, not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale: In calling Amendment No. 526G, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 526H.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, Amendment No. 526G:
	Line 44, leave out subsection (7).

Lord Dixon-Smith: In moving Amendment No. 526G, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 526H. These amendments are probing amendments directed to the same purpose. They illustrate the difficulties of joint authorship against tight deadlines. Those of us responsible for the amendments would have preferred to table only one, but we did not have time to debate which one before the deadline for tabling amendments hit us.
	These amendments concern the question of the order which will deal with the powers of conservation bodies. Amendment No. 526G seeks to remove subsection (7), which deals with the making of further provision in respect of supplemental and incidental powers and so on. Amendment No. 526H is more precisely aimed at subsection (7)(b), which states:
	"provide for any enactment which relates to or limits the supplemental or incidental powers...to apply in relation to the conservation board with such modifications as may be specified in the order".
	It seemed to me that that might put the conservation boards in a rather privileged position vis-a-vis local government legislation compared with local government itself. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. However, we felt that we should ask the question in order to discover precisely what does lie behind the new clause in Amendment No. 526. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Acceptance of either of these amendments would make the proposed system of conservation boards inoperable. The Government have not set out to prescribe every facet of the powers of conservation boards in this legislation in order to enable arrangements to be made to suit local circumstances at the time an order is made.
	Orders will need to make further supplemental or incidental powers available, for obvious reasons. Without that provision, conservation boards would not be able to operate. It is sensible to allow enactments relating to local authorities also to be applied but to recognise that certain features of them will need modification to match the circumstances of conservation boards, which are intended to be light touch bodies with limited powers and limited budgets. The full weight of procedures applying to a country or to a district will not always be appropriate to such a board, but suitable modification to take account of the board's circumstances will allow propriety to be safeguarded without overburdening the boards with bureaucracy. Once again, there is the point that anything done in an establishment order will be covered through the affirmative resolution procedure.
	These provisions are needed to tailor the regulations covering the boards to meet their particular circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall study it with some care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 526G, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 526H, as an amendment to Amendment No. 526, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 526 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 527 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 527A:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ORDERS ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION BOARDS
	(" .--(1) Any power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) No order shall be made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(3) A statutory instrument containing an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(9) by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(4) If a draft of an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State would, apart from this section, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.
	(5) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the person making the order thinks necessary or expedient.
	(6) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales by an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) to make incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision includes power for any incidental, supplemental, consequential or, as the case may be, transitional purpose--
	(a) to apply with or without modifications,
	(b) to extend, exclude or modify, or
	(c) to repeal or revoke with or without savings,
	any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.
	(7) The provision that may be made for incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional purposes in the case of any order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) which--
	(a) establishes a conservation board or provides for the winding up of such a board, or
	(b) otherwise has the effect of transferring functions from one person to another or of providing for functions to become exercisable concurrently by two or more persons or to cease to be so exercisable,
	includes provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from one person to another.
	(8) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) to provide by order for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities, or to make transitional provision in connection with any such transfer or with any order by which functions become or cease to be exercisable by any conservation board, includes, in particular, power to provide--
	(a) for the management and custody of any transferred property (whether real or personal);
	(b) for any liabilities transferred to include liabilities under any enactment;
	(c) for legal proceedings commenced by or against any person to be continued by or against a person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred or, as the case may be, any board or other authority by whom any functions are to become exercisable;
	(d) for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters; and
	(e) for treating any person to whom a transfer of property, rights or liabilities is made or, as the case may be, by whom any functions are to become exercisable as, for some or all purposes, the same person in law as the person from whom the transfer is made or the authority by whom the functions have previously been exercisable.
	(9) The power of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) or (9) includes power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas or localities and for different boards.
	(10) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 527A, Amendment No. 527B:
	Line 13, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Dixon-Smith: Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 527A states:
	"If a draft of an order made under section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1) by the Secretary of State would, apart from this section, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".
	I wonder why.
	First, let us be quite clear that we have a specific procedure in the Red Book to deal with hybrid instruments. Hybrid instruments are matters which affect the rights of individuals. Where a Bill or an order is judged to be hybrid, special procedures are involved and the individuals affected have the right to petition against the Bill or order. I found myself wondering why it was necessary to write this exclusion in to the Bill, so that a matter that affects individuals is treated as though it does not, and the individuals lose their right to appeal against it.
	It was pointed out to me that no one could remember when there was last a hybrid instrument. But that is not a reason for including this provision in the Bill. There might be one, and I should be concerned if in passing this provision we were to deprive individuals of what would otherwise be their rights before Parliament. That is the reason why I tabled the amendment. I am an optimist. I like to think that the Minister will have an adequate explanation as to why the subsection is on the face of the Bill; but I have had some difficulty in trying to dream one up.
	Amendment No. 527C, in the same group, deals with a part of the Bill which has too many words. Line 21 refers to such,
	"consequential and transitional provision as the person making the order thinks necessary or expedient".
	This is an example of prolixity--the point reiterated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If a matter was not considered expedient, it would not be there. The words,
	"the person making the order thinks necessary",
	are not required. The only words required are, "as is expedient".
	Subsection (6) deals with a matter that always causes me concern. Paragraph (c) of the subsection contains the words,
	"to repeal or revoke with or without savings, any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment".
	This is one of the wonderful catch-all phrases that we see from time to time in legislation. It bothers me every time I see it. Governments persist in doing it. They say that it gives them flexibility for the future. It is wrong in detail and in principle that the Secretary of State can have the power in making an order,
	"to repeal or revoke ... any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment".
	That is a slightly strange extension of what is necessary. It should not be necessary to include those words in a Bill. I have seen them before, and have complained about them before. Speaking pessimistically, I suppose that I shall see them again, and I shall probably complain about them again. However, I hope the Minister will not mind having to explain himself once again. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is right. Subsection (4) of my amendment is intended specifically to avoid such establishment orders being regarded as hybrid and, therefore, going through an enormously complicated procedure here--which, thank God, we have managed to avoid for most of the legislation that we have passed. Indeed, it would not be appropriate to regard this as a hybrid instrument that would discriminate and affect one group of persons as against another.
	There is no substantive change to local residents by bringing in the existence of an AONB. It is just one particular form of managing the AONB. The same planning rules will apply as refer to AONBs without conservation boards. There is no detriment--certainly not a discriminatory one--to local people. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that this is not treated as a hybrid instrument. It is a fairly common device, although the noble Lord may not like it because it is common.
	I am not quite sure of the purpose of Amendment No. 527C; indeed, I do not believe that it would make any difference. However, if it did, it would remove the limitation on the provisions that can be included. So it would give rather wider powers. As I say, I doubt whether it would have much effect but, in so far as it could, it would probably be in the opposite direction to that desired by the noble Lord.
	Amendment No. 527D deals, again, with a pretty standard kind of provision, which allows proper flexibility. The noble Lord may not like such flexibility for the Secretary of State, but successive Secretaries of State have used such provisions in legislation. When one draws up regulations, especially ones that may have to apply to different parts of the country and take account of local circumstances, it is important to have a degree of flexibility. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Lord Marlesford: Amendment No. 527B deals with the hybridity issue. I suppose that I am ignorant in this respect, but I am horrified to hear that it is common practice in legislation to declare that statutory instruments that are hybrid should not be treated as such. I regard the parliamentary provisions for dealing with hybridity as a most important part of our democracy. I do not see the distinction between primary legislation and secondary legislation which may be declared hybrid. As I understand it, the objective of having a hybridity procedure has always been to prevent governments from discriminating between classes of persons who, apart from discrimination, are the same in other respects.
	I am very worried about this provision. It is possible that it is much more common that I thought. I shall certainly make some enquiries as to whether or not I am wrong. I suggest that the concept of hybridity is central to our parliamentary democracy. I wonder why it is in this Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for his intervention. He raised the precise principle that worries me. I believe that I understood the Minister's response. Provided that he can give me an assurance at a later stage--he need not do so tonight--that the power could never be used other than to disbar the specific matter that he described, we would probably not have any problem with it. However, I always suspect that such clauses are simply an excuse to save the parliamentary draftsman from having to draft precisely what it is that the Government do mean. I accept that that is part of the problem with legislation.
	Amendment No. 527C was not supposed to affect the substance and consequences of the Bill; it was simply designed to reduce the number of words. It deals with the question of prolixity. I shall study what the Minister said on Amendment No. 527D. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 527C and 527D, as amendments to Amendment No. 527A, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 527A agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 528:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MANAGEMENT PLANS
	(" .--(1) Every conservation board shall, within two years after the date on which they are established, prepare and publish a plan which formulates their policy for the management of their area of outstanding natural beauty and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), the relevant local authority in respect of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall, before the end of the period of three years beginning with whichever is the later of--
	(a) the commencement of this section, or
	(b) the date on which the area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty,
	prepare and publish a plan which formulates their policy for the management of the area of outstanding natural beauty and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it.
	(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection, a conservation board has been established for the area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(4) A plan prepared under subsection (1) or (2) is to be known as an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan.
	(5) A conservation board or relevant local authority may, instead of preparing a plan under subsection (1) or (2),--
	(a) review any plan for the management of the area of outstanding natural beauty which has been prepared before the commencement of this section--
	(i) by a local authority, or
	(ii) by a joint committee established by two or more local authorities, and
	(b) adopt the plan as reviewed as their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan, and
	(c) publish it under subsection (1) or (2) within the time required by that subsection.
	(6) A conservation board may, within six months of the date on which they are established, adopt an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan prepared for their area of outstanding natural beauty by the relevant local authority as their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan, and publish it under subsection (1).
	(7) Subject to subsection (8), a conservation board shall review their area of outstanding natural beauty management plan before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which it was published and, after the first review, at intervals of not more than five years.
	(8) Where a conservation board have adopted a plan under subsection (6), the first review must take place before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which the plan was published.
	(9) Where an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan has been prepared under subsection (2), the relevant local authority shall review the plan before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which it was published and, after the first review, at intervals of not more than five years, but this subsection does not apply where a conservation board has been established for the area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(10) Where a conservation board or relevant local authority review any plan under this section, they shall--
	(a) determine on that review whether it would be expedient to amend the plan and what (if any) amendments would be appropriate,
	(b) make any amendments that they consider appropriate, and
	(c) publish a report on the review specifying any amendments made.
	(11) In this section "relevant local authority" means--
	(a) in the case of an area of outstanding natural beauty which is wholly comprised in one principal area, the local authority for that area, and
	(b) in any other case, the local authorities for all the principal areas wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty, acting jointly.").

Lord Whitty: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 529. These amendments represent an extremely important element in the Government's strategy. They require a management plan to be prepared and published for every AONB. Normally this would be done by the local authority which has the responsibility, or by a number of local authorities working together. In cases where an AONB conservation board comes into being, the duty to prepare the management plan would transfer to that board.
	The Government propose to allocate additional funding to the Countryside Agency to enable it to provide grant support for the production of management plans. Local authorities and conservation boards preparing those plans will be expected to work closely with local people and local groups who are stakeholders in the AONB so as to develop a shared vision with a shared commitment on the future of that AONB. The Countryside Agency intends to issue guidance next year on the recommended content of those plans. As I said earlier, the agency is working closely with the Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
	The experience gained by the national parks authorities which already prepare national park management plans under the Environment Act 1995 will be helpful. AONB management plans, like the park plans, will be expected to set out the management board's policy for the management of the AONB and the carrying out of its functions. We therefore accordingly expect management plans to contain both high level aspirations for the overall stewardship of the AONB and specific objectives on the work of the managing body--the local authority or the conservation board. These amendments set out the timescale for the preparation of plans. Generally, local authorities will be required to prepare and publish a plan within three years of this legislation coming into force and a conservation board within two years of its establishment. Plans will have to be reviewed at intervals of not more than five years. There is a provision for a local authority in the first instance to adopt a previously existing non-statutory management plan provided that it is reviewed by that authority first. I believe that these are sensible provisions. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, Amendment No. 528A:
	Line 35, after ("authority") insert ("or joint committee").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment is designed to aid the clarity of the Bill. The proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 528 states at subsection (6):
	"A conservation board may, within six months of the date on which they are established, adopt an area of outstanding natural beauty management plan prepared for their area of outstanding natural beauty by the relevant local authority".
	Amendment No. 528A seeks to add the words "or joint committee". The proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 528 mentions at subsection (5)(a)(ii) a plan prepared by a joint committee. For the sake of clarity the wording of the proposed new subsection (6) ought to be consistent with that of the proposed new subsection (5) in regard to a plan prepared either by a local authority or a joint committee.
	Amendment No. 528 requires conservation boards to prepare a management plan within two years of their establishment. They can do that by adopting an existing one, modifying an existing one or creating a new one. They have a considerable period of time in which to do that. However, we thought that it would be beneficial for them to state which route they intended to follow in establishing a management plan. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: The Minister in moving his amendment drew attention to the fact that he expected conservation boards or local authorities to work closely with local people when drawing up management plans. I am obviously delighted to hear that. However, as I understand the position, there is no statutory obligation for them to do so. Does not the Minister agree that it would be more expedient if there were something to that effect on the face of his amendment and, ultimately, on the face of the Bill?

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I speak to Amendment No. 529 and to Amendment No. 533 standing in my name which is grouped with it.
	The management plan proposed by the noble Lord is the conservation board's intervention in planning. That will eventually be equal to a county structure plan. It will cover much the same area and scope. I would hope, therefore, that it would make the conservation board a statutory consultee at that level. I am not clear from the clause whether it does so. The provision refers to the plan being referred to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. What do they then do with the plan?
	Amendment No. 533 calls for a specific response. I suggest to the Minister and my noble friends on our Front Bench that this is an appropriate additional clause to seek. If the management plan is of importance--the Minister says that it is a mixture of high level aspirations and specific objectives with structure planning in mind--and goes to the Secretary of State, he should have to reply within a reasonable time; I have suggested six months.
	I have talked to one of the former chief inspectors of prisons. Whenever he sent in a report on a prison, the Home Office told him that it was a marvellous report but did not reply to it for two years. By that time, conditions had changed; the governor had probably moved. The next chief inspector of prisons made it a condition of accepting the appointment that the Home Office would reply within six months and, if not, that he would have the right to publish the report off his own bat.
	This is not an exact analogy but there is some similarity. I hope, therefore, that Amendment No. 533 will find favour with the Minister and will be adopted. I believe that it would be a proper emphasis to ensure that the management plan receives a reply at the highest level within a reasonable period.

Lord Marlesford: I support Amendments Nos. 528 and 533. It is an essential part of the legislation on AONBs. As my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry says, the management plan is similar in effect to a county structure plan. Its advantage is that it is a plan prepared for the benefit of the AONB. It will apply only where there is a board. That is a good reason for having a board for AONBs.
	I agree with my noble friend that there should be a response to the plan. When a planning application is made to a local authority which appears to be contrary to a county structure plan, that is a good reason to oppose the planning application. It enables voluntary bodies in particular to make a good case to the district council, which is the planning authority, against a specific proposal where it appears to conflict with the county structure plan. Although the Minister explained earlier that the Government do not intend to take over the planning function from local authorities in the sense of taking over district council planning functions, I believe that this move is important and will to some extent have the same effect.

Lord Whitty: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was trying to clarify Amendment No. 528 through Amendment No. 528A, but I am not sure that it does that. Subsection (5) of Amendment No. 528 already allows a local authority or a conservation board to adopt a pre-existing non-statutory plan. Subsection (6) deals with the situation in which a conservation board is set up and wants to adopt an AONB management plan prepared after the passage into law of the Bill, which would therefore be a management plan of the type required by the Bill.
	Local authorities acting jointly will continue to be able to delegate that statutory function to a properly constituted joint committee. That is implicit in the normal run of things. The Bill places the duty to prepare a plan on local authorities. We do not need to refer specifically to the possibility that a local authority may have delegated that to a joint committee. The local authority is the responsible body.
	Amendment No. 528B would require the conservation board to announce within six weeks of its establishment whether it intended to adopt an existing management plan. That would add substantially to the pressures on a newly established authority. The Government have laid down a time limit of two years to adopt a management plan, including in the case of a decision to review and adopt a non-statutory plan, or within six months of establishment if the decision is to adopt an already prepared AONB management plan. If a local authority develops a plan that meets the requirements of the Bill and a board is subsequently established, the time limit will be six months, not two years. It is a bit exacting for a new board to have that time limit reduced to six weeks. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not pursue that amendment.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about consultation on the plan. He is right that there is no statutory provision for consultation, but that will be reflected in the Countryside Agency's guidance on how the plans operate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has tabled Amendment No. 533. It is not accurate to say that the plan being produced in this case is equivalent to a county structure plan. The management plans are separate from the development of the plan system. I suspect that he knows that in national parks there is a structure plan and a management plan. We shall continue to have a structure plan alongside the AONB plan. The Government envisage that such a plan should be a local document. Government representatives will participate in the drawing up or the review of those plans and the local representatives of the government agencies should continue to be involved in the operation and review of the plans.
	The amendment would require the Government to produce a formal response to the plan, much as they produce a formal response to regional planning proposals. That risks us getting into a confrontation with the AONB body. There should not be such conflicts if the participation of the agencies has worked well.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Is not the risk that the plan goes to the Minister and he does nothing about it greater than the risk of conflict?

Lord Whitty: There is a possibility of a government department commenting informally on the plan via the agency or directly, but a statutory response stage in the procedure would contradict the fact that the AONB body, whether it was a local authority or a conservation board, should have the responsibility for drawing up and reviewing that plan. Taking the analogy of planning arrangements, there could be potential conflicts, particularly if there was highly controversial material in the plan. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State or his officers commenting on the plan, but I believe that having a statutory response is building inflexibility and possible dispute into the process. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the point. I understand his need to see an iterative process between the AONB body responsible and the agency or department, but, I fear, not in this way.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my two amendments. I shall certainly undertake to study with care his reply to Amendment No. 528A. In saying that, I should like to feel that the arrangement might be reciprocal. I am not entirely convinced that he has answered the point that I raised. I hope that in a rather, shall we say, cooler atmosphere than we have to deal with tonight he will consider whether I have a point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 528A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 528B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 528, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 528 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 529:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT PLANS
	(" .--(1) A conservation board or relevant local authority which is proposing to publish, adopt or review any plan under section (Management plans) shall--
	(a) give notice of the proposal--
	(i) if the area of outstanding natural beauty is in England, to the Agency and English Nature,
	(ii) if the area of outstanding natural beauty is in Wales, to the Council, and
	(iii) in the case of a conservation board, to every local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty,
	(b) send a copy of the plan, together (where appropriate) with any proposed amendments of the plan, to every body to which notice of the proposal is required to be given by paragraph (a), and
	(c) take into consideration any observations made by any such body.
	(2) A conservation board or relevant local authority shall send to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales a copy of every plan, notice or report which they are required to publish under section (Management plans).
	(3) In this section "relevant local authority" has the same meaning as in section (Management plans).").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 529A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 529, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 529 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 530 to 532:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:GRANTS TO CONSERVATION BOARDS
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make grants to a conservation board, of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks fit.
	(2) Before determining the amount of any grant which he proposes to make to a conservation board under this section, or the purpose for which the grant is to be made, the Secretary of State shall consult the Agency.
	(3) Before determining the amount of any grant which it proposes to make to a conservation board under this section, or the purpose for which the grant is to be made, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Council.").
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:INTERPRETATIVE AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION
	(" .--(1) In this Part, unless a contrary intention appears--
	"the 1949 Act" means the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
	"the Agency" means the Countryside Agency;
	"area of outstanding natural beauty" has the meaning given by section (Designation of areas)(3);
	"conservation board" has the meaning given by section (Establishment of conservation boards)(1);
	"the Council" means the Countryside Council for Wales;
	"liability", in relation to the transfer of liabilities from one person to another, does not include criminal liability;
	"local authority" means a principal council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972;
	"principal area" has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1972.
	(2) Any reference in this Act to the conservation of the natural beauty of an area includes a reference to the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.
	(3) This Part does not apply in relation to any of the lands mentioned in section 112(1) of the 1949 Act (Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches).").
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
	(" . Schedule (Areas of outstanding natural beauty: consequential amendments and transitional provisions) (which contains consequential amendments and transitional provisions relating to areas of outstanding natural beauty) has effect.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 533:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PUBLICATION OF RESPONSE TO MANAGEMENT PLANS
	(" .--(1) The appropriate national authority shall, in respect of every management plan which it receives, within six months publish a response setting out--
	(a) the steps which the authority intends to take to further the objectives in that management plan; and
	(b) the extent to which the policies of the authority may conflict with that management plan and the steps which the authority intends to take to resolve that conflict.
	(2) In this section--
	"appropriate national authority" means--
	(a) in relation to a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty in England, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and
	(b) in relation to a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.
	(3) In this section--
	"management plan" means--
	(a) a National Park Management Plan published by a National Park authority in accordance with section 66 of the Environment Act 1995; or
	(b) a management plan in respect of an area of outstanding natural beauty published by a conservation board or relevant local authority in accordance with section (management plans).").

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I shall study the Minister's words carefully. I may wish to return to this matter on Report because I believe that it is important. However, in the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 533 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 534:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:POACHING OF DEER
	(" . After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Deer Act 1991 (poaching of deer) there shall be inserted--
	"(5) If any person fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (4) above or wilfully return to the land, an authorised person may apprehend such a person and convey him or cause him to be conveyed to a constable as soon as conveniently may be."").

Lord Glentoran: I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 534, 535 and 536 in this group are appropriate at this stage of the Bill. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendments Nos. 534 to 536 not moved.]

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: moved Amendment No. 536A:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSERVATION BOARDS: FINANCES
	(" .--(1) A conservation board shall have power in respect of every financial year beginning after the establishment of that board to issue levies to the councils by whom local authority members fall to be appointed to it, and accordingly section 71 of the Environment Act 1995 shall apply to a conservation board as if references in that section to a National Park authority were references to the board.
	(2) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make grants to a conservation board for such purposes, of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State or the Assembly thinks fit, and accordingly sections 72 and 73 of the Environment Act 1995 shall apply as if references in that section to a National Park authority were references to the board.").

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I listened carefully to the Minister's words. I cannot say that I agree on the point about not levying local authorities but I shall consider his words carefully. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: As I said earlier, I wish to raise only a simple point in relation to my noble friend's amendment. He knows what I said.
	Perhaps I may raise an important matter in relation to this part of the Bill which has not been touched on tonight. My noble friend was kind enough to arrange a meeting with his colleagues from the management of the various boards of the AONBs. Although we are dealing with the question of a facility which will enable conservation boards to be set up, I should not like this opportunity to go by without referring briefly to the position of the smaller boards, which other noble Lords have mentioned.
	My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but at that meeting many of the smaller boards, which are informal groups, expressed their concern regarding their funding. Again, I am more than willing to be corrected, but they do not see their way forward as becoming part of a big conservation board. Certainly, the indication from the groups to which I spoke that evening was that there may be only two or three groups which wish to become full conservation boards. However, the other more informal groups are extremely anxious that they should be able to carry on their work. They spend much of their time in the act of conserving. Conservation is the very nature of the work they do.
	The Minister said that money will be made available to the boards and I ask him to put on record that those smaller, informal groups will not be overlooked. Their needs will be smaller compared with those of the larger boards but those small needs may be more crucial--although my noble friend will not agree with me--in order for them to be able to continue on a day-to-day basis.
	It is not that I do not agree with what my noble friend said and I understand where he is coming from, particularly with regard to his South Downs board. I well understand the position in which it finds itself. But many of the other smaller groups are not looking to establish a bureaucratic regime and are extremely anxious about their future. Perhaps the Minister will give some further clarification as to how the money is to be allocated and how much which will go to the full conservation boards and how much will go to other less formal boards.

Lord Whitty: I said earlier that in terms of the allocation of the sums available for AONBs, there will be no discrimination on the basis of whether or not there was a conservation board. The allocation will be made on the basis of the needs of the AONB. I hope that that is sufficient to meet the noble Baroness's concerns. We may return to this issue on Report.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My noble friend on the Front Bench raises a very important point, and one which is certainly recognised by the larger groups which either have a conservation board or a substantial joint advisory committee.
	I hope that we do go forward along this route. I believe that it is extremely important that the smaller, less formal groups should know from where they will receive their money. I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend. We are not going to set up a bureaucratic regime but we want to know that we have sufficient finance to put into practice long-terms plans with farmers, stewardship schemes and so on. Clearly, the small groups also need that information. Clarification would be extremely helpful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 536AA:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF MARITIME AREA
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) and National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make regulations for the implementation of Article 2 of Annex V of the 1992 OSPAR Convention on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area.
	(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may in particular make provision with respect to--
	(a) measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected;
	(b) programmes and measures for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) for the control of human activities; and
	(c) the enforcement of such measures and programmes.").

Lord Judd: Despite its commendable purpose of amending the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife, the Bill as it stands does nothing to improve the prospects for conservation in the UK's marine environment. Yet the UK is home to an extraordinary array of marine biodiversity. In the 1994 UK biodiversity action plan, published by the previous government, it was estimated that within our 12-mile limit there is an area equivalent to 70 per cent of the land surface of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it has been estimated that 50 per cent of the UK's biodiversity is found in the seas with literally thousands of precious species. I know that my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen wants to say more about that.
	The world record for the largest turtle found stranded is not attributable to Sri Lanka, Cuba or the Philippines, as one might suppose, but Wales. According to the Countryside Council for Wales, a leatherback turtle was found stranded on the beach at Harlech in 1988. It measured just three metres long.
	Even more significantly, it is now clear that national legislation in the United Kingdom which relates to nature conservation should apply to up to 200 nautical miles rather than just 12 nautical miles.
	Recently the European Union issued a communication expressing the view that,
	"if a Member State exerts its sovereign rights in an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles (for example, the granting of an operating licence for a drilling platform), it thereby considers itself competent to enforce national laws in that area, and consequently ... the Habitats Directive also applies, in that Community legislation is an integral part of national legislation".
	The matter was also the subject of a recent legal challenge in which the High Court held in favour of Greenpeace that the obligations of the United Kingdom Government, under the habitats directive, were not restricted to 12 nautical miles, but extended to 200 nautical miles from the coast; yet currently there is no legislative framework for delivering effective nature conservation in the UK's large and diverse marine enviroment. The problem is most clearly illustrated by the failure to designate marine sites, whether they be marine nature reserves, marine special protection areas as designated under the European Union birds directive, or marine special areas for conservation as designated under the European Union habitats directive.
	The failing was recognised by the Government in the 1998 consultation paper on conservation, which paved the way for this Bill. Paragraph B16 of that paper stated:
	"The Government accepts that the concept of Marine Nature Reserves established under the 1981 Act has not been as successful as had been hoped, and only 3 have been designated to date".
	That is in contrast to around 6,500 sites of special scientific interest and areas of special scientific interest on land.
	The failing was also identified by Sub-Committee C of the House of Lords European Union Committee, of which I was a member, in a study into biodiversity conservation in the European Union. A key conclusion was that action was urgently required in the UK environment. It is difficult to see how the United Kingdom would ensure effective nature conservation in the marine environment or meet its obligations under the European Union directives and international conventions unless it rapidly addresses the lack of legislative framework for marine nature conservation.
	The amendment in my name is based on Article 2 of Annex V to the Oslo-Paris Convention. I understand that that annex is soon to be ratified by the United Kingdom. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic entered into force on 25th March 1998. Annex V covers the conservation of marine biodiversity and must be ratified separately from the rest of the convention. In fact, Article 2 states:
	"Contracting parties shall:
	(a) take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected; and
	(b) co-operate in adopting programmes and measures for those purposes for the control of the human activities identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3".
	Although the United Kingdom has signed up to the Oslo-Paris Convention, currently it has no legislative framework for its implementation. This simple amendment, which builds on an existing government commitment, highlights just how much the Government need to do if they are to meet the spirit and letter of the convention. Action is needed on many fronts, including species and habitat measures, protected areas and sustainable development solutions and enforcement.
	I suggest that the timing is now appropriate for the Government to move forward on marine nature conservation as a matter of urgency. Following the formal consultation on sites of special scientific interest, the Government established the Review of Marine Nature Conservation (RMNC). That review will soon conclude its work and it is essential that there is no delay in taking forward its recommendations. There is a clear need for a marine environment Bill to be introduced early in the next Parliament. If that does not happen, the exemplary work--I believe that it is exemplary--that has gone into the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will be an excellent job only half done. In the absence, as yet, of a clear commitment from the Government to introduce such a Bill, I believe that this simple but vital amendment is necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: It is late and I do not intend to keep the Committee long. I simply want to add a few words to what my noble friend said on Amendment No. 536AA. He mentioned the Welsh turtle. I should like to say a little about a few other friends on our coast that we may not be aware of.
	It is estimated that the UK's marine environment is home to over 8,000 marine organisms, including many that even those who have an interest in marine life may not realise are native to our shores, the harbour porpoise, the orcas and the bottle-nosed dolphin being good examples. Noble Lords knowing much more about this subject will be able to name many more. But those three alone serve to illustrate why the UK's marine environment must be better protected and improved upon.
	My noble friend outlined a great deal in relation to the Oslo-Paris convention. If the Government are to meet either the convention's spirit or its letter, they must take action on species and habitat measures as outlined in the amendment. As my noble friend said, the time is right for the Government to move forward on marine nature conservation. I hope, in that spirit, the Minister will be able to give a positive and encouraging response.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, appears on this amendment. But the Public Bill Office were confused and it is my name that should appear there.
	I support the amendment. The review of marine conservation taking place at the moment is discovering new species almost by the day. It is an accident of timing that that review will report after we have passed this important legislation. It is right, therefore, to include provisions in the legislation to extend protection to underwater life. Just because we cannot see under the water does not mean that that area should not be protected. That is a mistake we have made in the past which we must rectify.

Lord Jopling: I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is an old friend of mine, with regard to the implications of this amendment. I confess to him--this is bad manners on my part--that I have not had the opportunity to study the details of Article 2 of the Oslo-Paris convention. Therefore I am not entirely clear what it implies.
	I intervene because I am not sure where all this takes us. Perhaps I can give the Committee one example of why I am not clear. I look particularly at subsection (2)(a), which says,
	"measures to protect and conserve the eco-system".
	Later, the paragraph reads,
	"restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected".
	Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be good enough to tell me what that means with regard to seals.
	People have conflicting views about seals. Some tend to regard them as marine pussycats, adorable animals, which are nice to look at and swim in the sea. Others, particularly fishermen, regard them as a total menace. I have no specific axe to grind in relation to seals. For a period in my life I was a fisheries Minister. But earlier, when I was shadow fisheries Minister, I recall visiting a small Northumberland fishing village--it was not Craster but somewhere like it--where the fishermen were totally exasperated by the way that seals hung around their nets and took a nibble out of the salmon they had caught. I remember fishermen coming to talk to me. I also remember taking part in an interview for Tyne-Tees Television when I was shown frozen salmon which had had one bite taken out of their bellies. It is not as though the seals were hungry and wanted to catch a salmon to eat. They were playing with the salmon, taking out one bite and then moving on to the next to do the same.
	In large parts of our coastal areas, the protection given to seals has enabled their numbers to grow enormously. They have become an absolute menace in terms of the fishing industry in which many people seek to make their living. I have always been a friend of the historic families in the North East. When I was a fisheries Minister I strongly resisted pressure from whom I described as "ducal river owners" in Scotland who wanted a ban on all drift netting on the north-east coast. I said, "No, no, these people have been fishing for generations. There is no good reason why they should be stopped. I am perfectly prepared to make sure that they do not abuse their historic right to catch salmon on that coast and I will insist that the licence holder shall be in the boat. They will not be allowed to fish at night and at weekends." I tried to control the situation so that one could achieve a balance. I became convinced that that particular fishery was being ruined by the uncontrolled expansion of the seal population.
	I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, how subsection (2)(a) will operate. Will the present population of seals around our coast be protected and conserved under the first part of that paragraph in a way which few people believe is justified? I believe that the enormous explosion in the seal population is totally unjustified. These creatures are not marine pussycats; they are vicious, nasty animals in large numbers. Will the second part of the paragraph be used,
	"to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected",
	in order to return to the balance which existed years ago between, say, the salmon and the seals before the salmon was protected and their numbers exploded to the detriment of the salmon population in the marine environment?
	With great respect, it is no good the noble Lord merely proposing the measure without coming clean about the likely influence on the situation I have described. I am sure that many marine biologists could quote many other examples of the marine populations of various species being artificially altered. These measures will make the situation either worse or better and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be able to explain them.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I recall pressing for marine nature reserves during the proceedings on the 1981 Act. The grey seals around the British Isles are a very significant part of the world population of that species. We are, therefore, morally obliged to maintain a significant population of grey seals. The best answer to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, quite rightly identifies is to ensure that the world produces more salmon than it does at the moment, which may well suggest a more searching look at fish farms and practices associated with them.
	One of the reasons why it is essential to pay greater attention to our marine reserves is that, although we have a rich variety of species around our coasts, I understand that the vast majority of the post-mortems carried out on dolphins, to which my noble friend referred, reveal high levels of poisons of various kinds. That may be a threat to the long-term survival of that very attractive species which has been around our coasts for millennia. I hope that we shall see more marine reserves which encourage a greater application of modern science and study so that, not only do we know more about them but, with that knowledge, we are able to contribute to their survival. I support the amendment and hope that that assists my noble friend.

Lord Greenway: I hesitate to intervene in this cosy little debate, but I believe that at this late stage it is entirely inappropriate to introduce substantially new powers of a maritime nature into what was, until the introduction of the dolphin and shark amendment in the other place, a wholly terrestrial Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, at the moment a government working group is sitting to consider these matters. I suggest that it is much better to wait until its report is received. Ministers will then be in a position to make an executive decision on what, if any, legislation is appropriate.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My noble friend Lord Judd is right to raise this issue. The marine environment is a new and undiscovered country of incredible importance to the biodiversity of the United Kingdom. A marine working party is looking into this matter and, ideally, one should wait for its findings before moving ahead. However, it is 20 years since we last secured some decent wildlife legislation, and I am not sure that we can wait another 20 years for further legislation. I believe that we must seize this opportunity as it goes past and anticipate the fact that we must implement OSPAR. Effectively, marine conservation will require the kinds of regulations which are outlined in the amendment. Although the marine working party is doing extremely valuable work, it is looking at the matter in a much wider context, not simply some of the regulations covered by the amendment.

Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We both spoke strongly on this subject on Friday in the debate on biodiversity. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Action on this front is urgently needed because of the damage which is being done daily. I have had the privilege to be a commissioner of the Irish Lighthouse Service and a yachtsman of one kind or another for 40 years. I have travelled the coast of Ireland regularly by sea, road and, at times, helicopter. I have travelled the whole of the coast of the United Kingdom and a good part of Europe in small boats and experienced inshore biodiversity regularly over the years. I have also visited the Mediterranean. I have observed the rapid deterioration of the marine biology, particularly in France and the south coast of England.
	As my noble friend beside me said, marine biodiversity is not glamorous because what happens on the seabed is not seen. One does not see all the sewage that is released from yachts into estuaries. In certain parts of Europe, in particular the Mediterranean, it is already totally forbidden to discharge anything from a yacht or ship of any kind within a number of miles of the coast. Yachts at anchor may look attractive, but chains permanently rub along the seabed and keep it clear. There is no chance of life of any kind in those vicinities. The numbers of yachts and ships doing that are increasing. Valuable lichens and animals live on the rocks and cliffs where climbers go--I have done that as well--and they can be destroyed by boots. In short, our marine biodiversity seriously needs looking at in many respects. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. This is a big subject. It needs to be properly researched. But we cannot wait.

Baroness Nicol: I welcome the conversion on this issue of the Opposition. I have spent something like 17 years-- particularly when I was sitting on the other sideof the Chamber--trying to get a positive response on marine protection. It has been quite impossible to make any progress. I am delighted now that we are to have the support of the Opposition in this particular field.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may interject that some of us were not here 17 years ago.

Earl Peel: I think I am right in saying that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the noble Baroness pressed for these recommendations to be accepted by the then government. Furthermore, a number of marine SSSIs were actually designated on the back of the recommendations of the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Nicol: I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time of the passing of the 1981 Act. I arrived a couple of years later. But I was quickly made aware of the fact that marine protection had to be forced into the 1981 Act. It was not done willingly. When one looks at the history of what has happened to marine protection since that Act, I wonder whether my noble friend is wise to pursue a similar course and force it into this provision. I am keen to have a proper Act on marine conservation.

Lord Whitty: As I indicated in the debate on Friday at which several noble Lords were present, I accept that there has been a lack of progress on designating marine conservation areas, as compared with land-based ones, and in affording the protection which would be achieved by them. That is why we have put into effect this current review on marine conservation to report by the end of this year.
	However, the question in the amendment is whether we should use the Bill to implement Article 2 of Annex V of OSPAR. We ratified--to correct my noble friend Lord Judd--the annex earlier this year. Now, because an adequate number of countries have ratified it, it will come into effect on 31st October. We welcome that. We have indeed in part taken the lead in this.
	However, the provision of a new international agreement does not necessarily mean that we need new powers in this country. Indeed, the logic is slightly the other way round in that we would not have ratified the treaty if we did not think we had adequate powers. We think that we have adequate powers, both European powers and under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Petroleum Acts, which could be used to legislate for measures under Annex V. If we were to adopt new specific powers before the Bill came into force, and indeed before we had completed the current review of marine conservation areas, it may actually lead to us adopting the wrong additional provisions, should we conclude that we needed them.
	Therefore, we believe that we have a substantial number of powers already. We now have the will to pursue an increase in identification and powers to enforce marine conservation areas of all kinds, and we will have the international obligation to do so from the 31st of this month. In the mean time, legislation is also being drafted to extend the UK's implementation of the habitats directive--for example, up to 200 nautical miles--to reflect the High Court decision on the judicial review last year. There are significant similarities between the habitats directive and the birds directive so we are also considering whether we should extend the provision in relation to birds as well.
	A good deal is happening on the maritime side. There are new pressures on us in this area. But we do not think that this is the appropriate vehicle for implementing our obligations under Annex V. We can probably do so already, and if there are ways in which our present powers are inadequate, we do not yet know what they are. We would have to address that in what my noble friend has already identified as the preferred solution, which was underlined by my noble friend Lady Nicol just now.

Lord Judd: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. The hour is late. I would love to get into a long debate with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about seals. I hope he will forgive me if at this hour of night I choose not to get into that specific debate except to say that what would be necessary under legislation is for the species and its future to be appropriately managed. That does not mean that one would not control the number of seals, but one would have to be certain that a policy was in place to ensure that the species survived.
	I am a little concerned that in some of the contributions to this interesting debate there was what could be interpreted in one or two quarters as something approaching complacency. When we are all so disturbed about what has happened in the terrestrial setting and how we have almost lost control in terms of the rate at which species are declining, it is impossible to overemphasise the need for speedy and timely action in the marine environment. If the working party brings forward a report which facilitates proper regulation sooner rather than later, that will be altogether good. But if it leads only to further delay while still further debate takes place about what should be done, that will be approaching disaster.
	What has heartened me is that my noble friend the Minister--I have known him for many years and he knows how much I respect him--has used some very important words. He said that the will exists. When my noble friend says that the will exists, that is on the record and we respect that he has said it. I interpret that as meaning that the Government will act and act effectively. All I say is that we have no alternative. I am delighted to hear that the annex has now been ratified. I thought that it was about to be ratified. The fact that it has been ratified is good news. But if the annex is ratified and the convention is signed, we have no alternative. Quite apart from the need to preserve these species, we have a legal obligation to get on with it. The Minister has said that he will get on with it. I take his word for that. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 10 [Wildlife: amendments of Part I of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]:

Lord Kimball: moved Amendment No. 536AB:
	Page 107, line 32, leave out ("recklessly") and insert ("deliberately"").

Lord Kimball: The amendment is really a matter of the meaning of words. "Recklessly" means regardless of the consequences. "Deliberately" means after very careful consideration.
	It is all too easy for any bird to desert its nest. It is made even easier by the misguided policy of the RSPB, which does nothing whatever to control magpies and hooded crows. I always remember that the black-throated diver used to nest regularly at the bottom end of Loch Naver. We used to have a policy by which people did not fish down there because if one fished down there the bird left the nest and immediately the hooded crows came in and ate the eggs. That happened at least four or five times each year. So people took the deliberate decision not to fish down there.
	I remember when we had an oystercatcher which always nested in a very stupid place. For the first five years of her life, she never succeeded in hatching a chick. During her last remaining four years--I was amazed at how long oystercatchers could live--she had no husband, but she continued to sit on a pink stone on a particular piece of shingle by the river where she had never successfully managed to breed. Close to the end of this period, I got another oystercatcher's egg and put it into her nest. I can assure noble Lords that, after eight years, never was there such a bird once she was able to raise a chick.
	In my opinion, that was a deliberate action which was carefully considered and should not be turned into an offence in this way. I beg to move.

Lord Reay: The purpose of this amendment, to which I have added my name, is to remove the offence of "reckless disturbance" from the Bill. The introduction of this new offence, punishable by imprisonment--namely, that of recklessly disturbing birds listed in Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act--is causing considerable concern to many of those involved in land management. I should declare an interest here as someone involved in estate management.
	The potential application of this provision goes very wide. It could catch the wholly innocent farm worker who perhaps disturbs a nesting barn owl as a result of entering a building in which he stores his equipment. It could catch the upland gamekeeper who inadvertently disturbs an early nesting Schedule 1 bird while heather burning. It could also catch anyone cutting a hedge, hacking down shrubbery or mowing a hay meadow. Without intending to, anyone carrying out such a task could harm or disturb listed nesting birds or their young.
	Similarly, the introduction of the word "recklessly" on line 9 of page 108 of the Bill in relation to wild animals would make it an imprisonable offence to unintentionally but recklessly harm any shelter used by a listed wild animal such as the common frog or any species of bat.
	Can the Minister explain how the Government intend this new clause to operate in practice? Do they really intend to expose innocent farm workers and others to the risk of imprisonment while carrying out their legitimate activities? Who will the Government rely on to enforce this provision?
	I suggest that this is an oppressive and even a savage proposal, introducing penalties wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and which will do nothing at all to win friends to the cause of bird and animal protection. I beg the Minister to think again.

Baroness Byford: I rise briefly to support this amendment moved and spoken to by my noble friends. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. As my noble friend Lord Reay has just pointed out, the proposal will impose a criminal offence on those who unfortunately may cause difficulty, even though not they had not done so deliberately. Anyone involved in the modern technologies of today's farming practices will be well aware of the issues surrounding hedge cutting, to name only one aspect.
	I believe that my noble friends have made an important point here. I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I appreciate the concerns expressed by noble Lords as regards the implications of our new offence of recklessly disturbing certain protected bird species.
	However, we have clear information that in disturbance cases, genuine enforcement difficulties have arisen. The requirement that there has to be proof that any disturbance was caused intentionally has been found to be difficult. Clearly it cannot be right that a person found climbing a tree to visit a nest can escape conviction by claiming that he had not intended to disturb the birds.
	We have been particularly careful to introduce the recklessness test only where it is appropriate. Our rarest birds are at their most vulnerable when they are at the nest, and I believe it is right that we should give them the extra protection they deserve. Introducing the test of recklessness will mean that a prosecutor will have to show that a person either deliberately took an unacceptable risk or failed to notice an obvious risk which caused disturbance.
	The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a defence that a person will not be guilty of an offence if he can show that something which he has done which would otherwise have been an unlawful act, was in fact the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. I should also add that an accidental disturbance is not an offence.
	I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that law-abiding countryside workers have nothing to fear from these provisions. In such circumstances the police are the statutory enforcement agency. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, particularly in regard to farm workers going about their normal business. I support her view that taking eggs from birds' nests is not desirable. It is something we are anxious about. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. The Minister is looking puzzled.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the sake of clarification, I should say that removing eggs is an offence. I made reference to people climbing to a nest even without the intention of removing eggs. That would be reckless disturbance.

Lord Kimball: In view of what the Minister has said and the fact that only a police constable can deal with such matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Greenway: moved Amendment No. 536B:
	Page 108, line 12, leave out ("disturbs") and insert ("molests").

Lord Greenway: Paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 was inserted in another place by the Government without consultation with boating interests and despite the fact that the marine study working group is looking at these matters at the moment. It introduces a new subsection (4A) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act which makes it a criminal offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb a dolphin, a whale or a basking shark. It is aimed primarily at motorboats and personal watercraft--or jetskis, as they are more commonly known. I have no quarrel with that; it is a perfectly laudable aim. However, I am concerned that the provision might possibly impinge upon the lawful right of innocent passage in coastal waters.
	It is true that the Wildlife and Countryside Act allows a defence where the alleged offence was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. Navigation activities normally amount to a lawful operation, but it would seem that any disturbance of cetaceans and basking sharks which is the incidental result of such navigation can reasonably be avoided by keeping away from an area where such creatures may reasonably be expected to be found and by immediately leaving any area where they are encountered.
	"Disturbance" is not defined for the purposes of the new subsection but, given its ordinary meaning, would include any interruption of the enjoyment of dolphins and so on of their habitat and not simply action amounting to some kind of molestation.
	Some Members of the Committee may have boating experience. They will know that dolphins are very playful creatures. They are also highly manoeuvrable, much more so than any boat. It would be difficult for a yachtsman to avoid an over-zealous enforcement officer taking photographs in which the boat might appear to be disturbing dolphins. In this case, enforcement and policing will be extremely difficult. It conjures up wonderful Keystone Cops type images of young men on jetskis being pursued by policemen on jetskis with blue flashing lights, bouncing across rough seas.
	Joking apart, it seems wrong that recreational yachtsmen and others should be put at jeopardy and have the reasonable exercise of their activities constrained by a prohibition on disturbance which not only involves no concept of harm or adverse impact, but would also permit an officious and wide-ranging anti-boating stance to be taken in pursuit of the precautionary principle. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment. It attempts to narrow down the wide-ranging impact of the concept of "disturbance".
	There is increasing pressure for the delineation of coastal areas for cetacean protection. The two redoubtable noble Baronesses on the Government Back Benches will not be surprised when I say that the Royal Yachting Association and other boating authorities are increasingly concerned that, if we go further down this road, in years to come substantial areas of coastal waters could be denied to small craft--despite the fact that scientific knowledge of what may or what may not disturb such creatures is still at a basic level. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government introduced the offence of "intentional or reckless disturbance" into the Bill in order to close the loophole which, due to their lack of a place of shelter or protection, would make it very difficult to apply the Bill's original provisions on reckless disturbance to certain marine species. This addresses concerns that some of these species, namely the cetacean family (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and the basking shark, are vulnerable to reckless disturbance, particularly by fast personal watercraft such as jetskis.
	However, this amendment to insert "molest" would negate the benefit provided by the inclusion of "reckless" disturbance. "Molest" implies that the act was carried out with a degree of intent to injure or annoy, thus reinstating the need to prove intent. I therefore believe that this amendment would weaken the protection being offered to these vulnerable marine species.
	I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and all those involved in responsible sailing and yachting interests that accidental disturbance of these species will not be an offence; nor will the ordinary navigation of a vessel. If a cetacean seeks out a vessel to ride its waves, the vessel would not be acting in an irresponsible or reckless manner, and would not be committing an offence. Conversely, if the cetacean changes its course and is followed by the vessel and every time the cetacean alters course the vessel follows it, then this activity may be seen as causing disturbance. There is existing guidance outlining appropriate behaviour when sailing near cetaceans which will help to avoid the commission of any offence.
	At this late hour, I am sure that Members of the Committee would not like me to read out the entire list. We even have a small card which many people have found it useful to carry round with them. It offers carefully thought out guidance on how to avoid causing distress and trouble to these creatures while pursuing normal activities in a responsible manner. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, will not feel it necessary to pursue his amendment.

Lord Greenway: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am slightly unhappy that the parliamentary draftsman could not come up with some rather more appropriate words to deal with my concerns. However, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's assurance that yachtsman going about their normal duties will not be committing an offence if dolphins are playing around their boat. Dolphins and whales are extremely difficult to handle. Indeed, most yachtsman would keep well clear of a whale because, in many cases, it is rather larger than the boat. However, dolphins are a different matter. I shall read carefully in Hansard the response of the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 537:
	Page 108, line 19, after ("I),") insert--
	("(a) after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted--
	"(e) arrest that person where the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a failure to do so would result in the concealment, alteration, loss, damage or destruction of anything which may be evidence of the commission of an offence or may be liable to be forfeited under section 21,", and.
	(b)").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The aim of this amendment is to add a subsection to Section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It would provide police officers with the power of arrest to prevent the destruction or loss of evidence for offenders against wildlife legislation that might be found at another place before the enforcement agencies had had the opportunity to obtain a search warrant.
	There is no such provision in the legislation at present. Therefore, when egg collectors are apprehended, the police sometimes have great difficulty arresting those concerned prior to discovering the evidence. We believe that such an amendment would close that loophole and make the work of the police substantially easier in enforcing wildlife law. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I share the concern of the noble Baroness that wildlife law should be enforced as effectively as possible. Indeed, I have some sympathy with the aim of the amendment and acknowledge the difficulties faced by police officers. However, it is also important that we do not make exceptions to provisions that have been drawn up for good reasons. Clearly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codified and rationalised powers of arrest and established a structure that aims to match police powers and penalties to the seriousness of the offence. I recognise that the power of arrest sought by this amendment is conditional in that it would be used only for specific purposes. Nevertheless, it would be outside the structure established by that Act, part of which was designed specifically to clarify and rationalise police powers.
	I shall be happy to consider the matter further to ascertain whether there is any movement that we can make on this front. However, I cannot promise anything. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank he Minister for his reply. I note that his colleague in another place was also sympathetic. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been in force for a long time; and, indeed, the value of eggs has grown substantially. Therefore, I believe that now is probably the time to move from being sympathetic to taking action on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kimball: moved Amendment No. 537ZA:
	Page 108, line 23, leave out from ("a") to end of line 25 and insert ("police constable").

Lord Kimball: Since the passing of the Act some 20 years ago, wildlife inspectors are now regarded with a certain amount of suspicion. One heard the other day of a wildlife inspector who got up in court in Norwich and announced that a kestrel was a rare bird. It is certainly not beyond the devious nature of these people's work when it comes to putting a poisoned bird on someone else's land, as in actual fact was proven by a case in the Western Isles with golden eagles.
	I consider it quite wrong for the Secretary of State to authorise any individual to break into someone else's property at what is said to be a convenient time and take, or have taken, samples of anything that is found on the premises. Environmental sharp practice is not something new that we have to face. It was made clear in the debate that took place before many people had to leave this House when Lord Lytton introduced a debate about the lead shot order. During the discussion on that order, he pointed out that officials from English Nature had introduced a particular species into a certain area in order to try to get extra protection for that area, which it did not deserve.
	I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch eventually secured an answer at the end of last year. Since the Government came to power some 35 statutory instruments have been introduced to give powers of entry to private property. The time has come to stop that process. My amendment seeks to do so in a particular case. I beg to move.

Lord Marlesford: I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. It is inappropriate that anyone in this country who is described in the words of the Bill as a,
	"'wildlife inspector' ... a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State under this subsection",
	should have the rights we are discussing.
	I tabled a number of parliamentary Questions for Written Answer with regard to the lead shot regulations. It soon transpired that it is not the Secretary of State who personally authorises someone in that regard; any official of the department who has the authority of the Secretary of State can authorise someone. It is quite wrong that someone who perhaps works for the RSPB should be allowed to enter private premises. Although there appear to be certain exclusions in the Bill with regard to entering dwellings, the proposed new Section 19ZA(d) states:
	"enter and inspect any premises for the purpose of verifying any statement".
	Therefore, it looks as if anyone can enter premises. The entering of private premises in this country should be restricted to those officials who can normally do so. They include such people as Customs and Excise officers who have had that right by long tradition and, of course, police constables. In the case we are discussing, the appropriate person should certainly be a police constable. As I said, I strongly support my noble friend. I hope that if the Government do not accept the amendment, either he will test the opinion of the Committee or bring it back on Report.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I do not claim expertise in the law on rights of entry. However, I hate to think that the Committee might seek to curtail such powers and rights as are held, for example, by the inspectorate of the RSPCA. Sometimes those people need at least to secure entry into a property to tackle some people's horrendous treatment of animals. I would not like to see curtailed the work of some people I know of in the RSPB and other bodies. My mind goes back a few years to the occasion when an RSPCA inspector, working in co-operation with the police, secured the arrest of one of my most respectable constituents. She was a middle-aged lady of high repute. However, she was trading in falcons and hawks. She sought to sell one of those birds late at night in a motorway service area on the M62. If anyone wished to sell a bird such as a peregrine falcon at Birch services, it would be reasonable for an RSPB inspector to be present. It was particularly appropriate that a police officer was also present to secure the proper pursuit of justice.
	I believe that there is a place for the inspectorate in such cases. As regards the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred, there may have been an excess of zeal on the part of the inspectorate. However, one should recognise that it has a part to play and one hopes that it will always be assisted by the constabulary in the various areas in which it operates.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I, too, support the role of the wildlife inspectorates which carry out a wide range of inspection duties. They provide a proper monitoring framework for much of the legislation in this area. There is a real need for that inspection. There is considerable organised crime in this area. The most recent RSPB report on crimes against birds revealed 63 cases of illegal taking, possession and sale of wild birds in the past year alone. Many of these birds are on conservation lists. People want to trade in them illegally because they are lucrative and desired.
	If we were considerably to restrict the inspectors' role, requiring inspection to be carried out by the police we would not have an adequate framework to implement the law. Law which cannot be properly implemented is no law.

Lord Whitty: My noble friend takes the words out of my mouth. There is a growing problem that has to be addressed. These provisions largely rationalise what inspectors are already doing but gives them new powers to require samples for DNA analysis. It is not the case that inspectors can kick in the door to everyone's home. Only those people who are subject to the controls may be visited. They must operate within strict guidelines which set out when inspections must be arranged and who is supposed to be present on those premises, including the occupier when the inspector goes on to those premises.
	I believe that the inspectors need these powers. The powers are complementary to those of the police. Police officers are then free to concentrate on more serious offences. Without this possible detection means and deterrent, I think that much more wildlife protection would be lost. I therefore would not want to accept the noble Lord's amendment and hope that he will not pursue it.

Lord Kimball: We shall require a little time to consider what the Minister said. I do not believe that it is necessary to have these extra powers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 537A to 538 not moved.]
	Schedule 10 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 539:
	After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule--
	:TITLE3:("SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: CONSERVATION BOARDS
	:TITLE3:Interpretation
	1. In this Schedule--
	"an English conservation board" means a conservation board for an area of outstanding natural beauty in England;
	"the relevant order", in relation to a conservation board, means--
	(a) the order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) establishing the board,
	(b) any order under that section relating to that board, or
	(c) any order made in relation to that board in exercise of the power to amend an order under that section.
	:TITLE3:Status and constitution of conservation boards
	2. A conservation board shall be a body corporate.
	3.--(1) A conservation board shall consist of--
	(a) such number of local authority members as may be specified in the relevant order, and
	(b) such number of members to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as may be so specified.
	(2) In the case of an English conservation board, such number as may be specified in the order as the number of members of that board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be parish members.
	(3) The numbers specified in the relevant order for any conservation board in relation to the membership of the board must be such that--
	(a) the number of local authority members is at least 40 per cent. of the total number of members, and
	(b) in the case of an English conservation board, the number of parish members is at least 20 per cent. of the total number of members.
	:TITLE3:Local authority members
	4.--(1) The local authority members of a conservation board shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant order.
	(2) The relevant order must provide either--
	(a) for the local authority members to be appointed by such of the local authorities for areas wholly or partly comprised in the area of outstanding natural beauty as may be specified in or determined under the order ("the relevant councils"), or
	(b) for the local authority members to be appointed by such of the relevant councils as may be determined in accordance with a scheme contained in the relevant order.
	(3) A person shall not be appointed as a local authority member of a conservation board unless he is a member of a local authority the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty; and, in appointing local authority members of a conservation board, a local authority shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the authority who represent wards, or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of any local authority is appointed as a local authority member of a conservation board--
	(a) he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that authority; but
	(b) his appointment may, before any such cessation, be terminated for the purposes of, and in accordance with, sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance).
	(5) Sub-paragraph (4)(a) shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who, on retiring from any local authority, immediately becomes such a member again as a newly elected councillor; but a person who so becomes a member again shall be eligible for re-appointment to the conservation board.
	(6) The appointment of any person as a local authority member of a conservation board may provide that he is not to be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) as qualifying for his appointment by virtue of his membership of any local authority other than that specified in the appointment.
	(7) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (bodies to which appointments have to be made taking account of political balance), after paragraph (ba) there is inserted--
	"(bb) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".
	:TITLE3:Parish members
	5.--(1) The parish members of an English conservation board shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(2) A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board unless he is--
	(a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty, or
	(b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish--
	(i) which does not have a separate parish council, and
	(ii) the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of a parish council is appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that parish council.
	(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his being the chairman of a parish meeting is appointed as a parish member of an English conservation board, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be the chairman of that parish meeting.
	(5) Sub-paragraph (3) or (4) shall not have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who retires from a parish council, or ceases to be the chairman of a parish meeting, until such time as may be determined by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with the relevant order.
	(6) A person who--
	(a) on retiring from a parish council, or
	(b) on ceasing to be the chairman of a parish meeting, becomes a member of the parish council again as a newly elected councillor or, as the case may be, is elected to succeed himself as chairman of any parish meeting is eligible for re-appointment to the conservation board at the time mentioned in sub-paragraph (5).
	(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of the relevant order, a parish member of an English conservation board shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
	:TITLE3:Members (other than parish members) appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales
	6.--(1) Before appointing any person as a member of a conservation board, the Secretary of State shall consult the Agency.
	(2) Before appointing any person as a member of a conservation board, the National Assembly for Wales shall consult the Council.
	(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule and to the provisions of the relevant order, a person appointed as a member of a conservation board by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales--
	(a) shall hold office for such period of not less than one year nor more than three years as may be specified in the terms of his appointment; but
	(b) on ceasing to hold office shall be eligible for re-appointment.
	(4) The term of office of a person appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to fill such a vacancy in the membership of a conservation board as occurs where a person appointed by the Secretary of State or the Assembly ceases to be a member of the board before the end of his term of office may be for a period of less than one year if it is made to expire with the time when the term of office of the person in respect of whom the vacancy has arisen would have expired.
	(5) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of the relevant order, a member of a conservation board appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
	(6) This paragraph does not apply to persons appointed as parish members of an English conservation board or to their appointment as such members.
	:TITLE3:Chairman and deputy chairman
	7.--(1) The members of a conservation board shall elect, from amongst their members, both a chairman and a deputy chairman of the board.
	(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the chairman and deputy chairman of a conservation board shall be elected for a period not exceeding one year; but a person so elected shall, on ceasing to hold office at the end of his term of office as chairman or deputy chairman, be eligible for re-election.
	(3) A person shall cease to hold office as chairman or deputy chairman of a conservation board if he ceases to be a member of the board.
	(4) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of chairman or deputy chairman of a conservation board, it shall be the duty of the members of that board to secure that the vacancy is filled as soon as possible.
	:TITLE3:Audit
	8. In Schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act 1998 (accounts subject to audit) in paragraph 1 after paragraph (j) there is inserted--
	"(jj) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 539, Amendment No. 539A:
	Line 16, leave out paragraph 3 and insert--
	(" .--(1) A conservation board shall consist of not more than 24 members of whom--
	(a) not less than two-thirds shall be appointed by local authorities and parish councils in such proportion as they decide among themselves; and
	(b) the balance of not more than one third shall be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate, from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the Conservation Board.
	(2) In the event of a failure by local authorities and parish councils to agree appointments under paragraph (1)(a) above, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for arbitration and decision.
	. A Conservation Board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an Advisory Council, and if such a Council is formed, shall appoint members who shall be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the Conservation Board.").

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I tabled this amendment because there is general dissatisfaction with the number of members of the conservation board to be appointed under Amendment No. 539 by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 539 suggests that 40 per cent shall be local authority members; and the balance of 60 per cent shall be appointed by the Secretary of State of which 20 per cent shall be parish members. I find it hard to understand why the Secretary of State should appoint parish members. It would be far more appropriate for that to be done by parishes, by local people. It is almost absurd to consider that parish members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	I believe that the balance is wrong. My amendment is a probing amendment to which we shall return, probably on Report. I suggest that the balance should be two-thirds appointed by local authorities and parish councils,
	"in such proportion as they decide among themselves".
	It seems more satisfactory that local people should work out how many should be council members, how many district members and how many parish members. It would be better for that to be undertaken locally than by an edict passed in Parliament for implementation by the Secretary of State. Obviously, if local people could not agree among themselves, the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State for arbitration and decision.
	I accept that one third of the members should be appointed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, but they should come from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the conservation boards. The principle is that two thirds should be parish and local authority members appointed locally and a maximum of one third should be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	I have added that the conservation boards shall consist of not more than 24 members. I wholly understand if the Minister says that it is not for us to set a limit because the order should decide. My point is that there is a great danger of there being too many people on such boards. The conservation board of which I am chairman numbers 36, plus me. If we were to become a national park, embracing east Hampshire as well--that is the Government's intention and the Countryside Agency is working on it--I am told that on the same distribution the size of our board would be 45. That is too large. For effective working, the smaller the board the better. I suggest that 24 is the maximum for a reasonable executive board capable of reaching decisions. Within that, no more than one third should be appointed by the Secretary of State and two thirds by local people.
	However, with a board of only 24 there will be people who feel that they should be consulted and have not been. That is why I have tagged on the thought that:
	"A Conservation Board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an Advisory Council".
	That advisory council could be quite large, meeting perhaps twice a year. Its members could be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the conservation board. That is a different approach. I have got away from trying to decide exactly how parish members are elected and how many there should be. Let the local people decide. There could be a smaller number on the board, supported by an advisory council to bring in a larger gathering of people to talk about their objectives and aspirations once or twice a year. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne: I support my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We have come back to the issue of local accountability on conservation boards. My noble friend has said it all. There can be no case for having a minority of locally accountable people who have been elected or appointed by local authorities. The Secretary of State could appoint up to 60 per cent--20 per cent from the parish councils and another 40 per cent from elsewhere. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will think again about the proposal.

Lord Bridges: I well understand the feeling that parish members should be represented on the boards, but I am somewhat concerned that they are to be confined to parish councillors. Having seen a good deal of the work of parish councils recently, I am not convinced that all the people who could best contribute to a conservation board would necessarily be found among their ranks. Parish councillors now face demanding tasks and there may be others who would be well able to contribute to the work of the board who have chosen not to be parish councillors.
	We need a different procedure by which the parish council could suggest names from among their own number or from among residents of the parish to be considered by the appointing body, be it the Secretary of State or somebody else. I prefer the arrangement suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It would be much better and more representative and would not have the link with the Secretary of State whose role seems a little unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has so much to do. The Bill places many more tasks upon him, and this is something which he need not bear.

Lord Marlesford: I support my noble friend's amendment for the simple reason that I want the Bill to be effective. I want the boards to be effective, and I am quite sure that 24 is the absolute maximum number of members for a sensible executive body. Certainly, the executive board of almost every company of which I am aware has fewer than 24 members. The total board, including non-executives, would probably comprise fewer than that number. Even the Cabinet has no more than 24 members. I am not sure whether the number is limited by statute, but I believe that the number of people in the Cabinet who can be paid is limited to 24. If a Prime Minister wants additional members, he must find people who will serve without payment.
	I am sure that that number is right. I also believe that it is right to switch the proportions so that 60 per cent of the members are local people and only 40 per cent are appointed by the Secretary of State. I believe that that would give greater credibility to what will be an important body for AONBs.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We have returned to the debate that we had earlier. Perhaps this is the point at which I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that I strongly disagree with the statement that he made earlier that I do not see local accountability as important. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the amendment.
	I believe that the model proposed by the Government probably builds on the national parks model. The Secretary of State confirms the parish council representation in that instance. Therefore, it might be said to be a Secretary of State appointment. However, the parish councillors are chosen locally from among the parishes. I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may be covered by the precedent set by a parish council being able to appoint a school governor to represent it on a governing body. The representative does not have to be a member of the parish council.
	One weakness of the national parks model which the Minister might address is that currently the Secretary of State's appointees who are considered to represent the national interest can be appointed from many miles outside the park--sometimes virtually from the other end of the country. That seems to me to be a weakness. I believe that the Secretary of State should make every effort to ensure that, where the person is appointed not as a local authority member but to represent a national interest, some qualification about living or working within the area should be in force. If the Secretary of State was truly unable to find such a person, it may be possible to look further afield. However, I believe that the underlining of the role of locally elected members in conservation boards, and the links that that would forge to local authorities, is extremely important.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a series of amendments which are grouped with my noble friend's amendment and which have a similar effect, but in their effect they have very much answered the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
	This series of amendments may appear to be scrappy because one must sit down and work out exactly what they say. My noble friend, however, has had the good sense to produce a cohesive amendment which appears to provide the perfect solution. Of course, it is not perfect because the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has pointed out its flaw. The flaw is that we do not understand--at least, I still do not understand--the need of the Secretary of State to appoint members to those boards when the chips are down.
	If, in his reply, the Minister says that the Secretary of State will do so simply because there must be an appointment mechanism and he is it, we say simply that that is because we are unable to take sufficient care to ensure that the local organisations produce the people who are required. That is what my amendments are directed to because we see that the conservation boards should consist of council and parish council members and we leave to the Secretary of State the right to determine the numbers. But they both will be appointed in accordance with a scheme to be defined in the order. That can be done quite easily. It is reasonable to assume that one AONB in one part of the country will have a very different constitution from a different AONB in a different part of the country.
	However, I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry about numbers. On the whole, the prejudice should be to keep numbers small.
	If the Secretary of State has an interest, the point is covered in my amendments by allowing him to appoint two members. I am not even sure that that is necessary but I thought that I should leave in that provision because it seemed to me to be a reasonable concession.
	Certainly, the conservation bodies can be covered much better by allowing the boards to co-opt such number of members who may be co-opted from relevant conservation bodies as specified in the order. You do not want someone from the national headquarters of a conservation body, except in particular circumstances, as a member of an AONB in the far-flung ends of the country. What we want is to have the local people who have local interests and who know what is going on. That applies just as much to conservation bodies as it does to parish and ordinary councils.
	Therefore, my series of amendments goes rather further than the amendment of my noble friend. At this late hour, I do not ask the Minister to answer this question this evening but simply to say that he will go away and think about the issue because I do not pretend to have an absolute answer and I hope that my noble friend would not do so either. We are both pointing in the same direction: those bodies should consist of local people arrived at and determined locally, in so far as that is possible. If there is a need for national representation for a natural interest, that should be kept as small as is reasonably possible. It was with those thoughts in mind that I tabled these amendments.

Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 539K and 539L. The first amendment suggests that the term of office should be limited so that it is not an ongoing office that somebody holds for ever and a day. That is why I suggest that that period should be 10 years.
	Amendment No. 539L deals with the whole question of filling the vacancy. I suggest that that should be done within six weeks. I believe that the Scottish Parliament requires its vacancies to be filled within four weeks.

Lord Whitty: Clearly, some people object to the Secretary of State appointing anybody onto these boards. For them to work and for there to be a national network of AONB conservation boards, there needs to be some representation which is not automatically from the local authorities within the area. In fact, the proportions being discussed are not as wildly different as the debate may have suggested. We are saying that 60 per cent should be from the localities; that is, 40 per cent from the local authorities and 20 per cent from the parish councils.
	There is an argument as to how the parish people should be appointed. We are using the same provisions as those which apply to representation in the national parks legislation.
	I am not sure that I understand the argument that the Secretary of State should not appoint the 20 per cent, but in larger areas someone has to sort out the representatives from the parishes. Whether the parishes are happy about that being sorted out by the district council, for example, probably depends on the part of the country one lives in.
	However, I am not persuaded by any of these alternative formulae. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, suggests putting a ceiling on the situation, I can see some benefit, but it makes the calculations more difficult when one has to deal with a significant number of local authorities and parishes within the area. I am not convinced that any alternative formulation is better than ours. No doubt we shall return to this matter. I shall consider it further, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-smith, suggests. At the moment I am not convinced of anything that has yet been proposed.
	On Amendment No. 539K, which relates to the term served, I agree that there should be a limit as suggested by the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether that would be less disruptive, but there is some merit in the proposal and I shall be happy to consider it further.
	Amendment No. 539L is a precise amendment that says that vacancies must be filled within six weeks. My experience of public appointments suggests that that would be difficult. I believe that it is best left to the detail of the regulations rather than being put on the face of the Bill, particularly as I believe that the point may be unachievable.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I thank the Minister for that reply. This is an extremely important point. The practical demonstration of local democracy will centre largely around the number of local people who are on a conservation board and how they are appointed. The thought of the Minister thinking more about this is irresistible at this time of night. I shall gladly accept the suggestion that we refer to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 539B to 539L, as amendments to Amendment No. 539, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 539 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 540:
	After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule--
	:TITLE3:("SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:SUPPLEMENTAL POWERS OF CONSERVATION BOARDS
	:TITLE3:Interpretation
	1. In this Schedule--
	"common", "disposal" and "open space" have the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
	"relevant order" has the same meaning as in Schedule (Areas of outstanding natural beauty: conservation boards).
	:TITLE3:Power to acquire land
	2.--(1) For the purposes of any of their functions under this or any other enactment, a conservation board may acquire by agreement any land, whether situated inside or outside their area of outstanding natural beauty.
	(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to acquisition by agreement is a reference to acquisition for money or money's worth as purchaser or lessee.
	Power to dispose of land
	3. Subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 and to the provisions of the relevant order, a conservation board may dispose, in any manner they wish, of land which is held by them but no longer required by them for the purposes of their functions.
	4.--(1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales), a conservation board may not--
	(a) dispose under paragraph 3 of land which consists of or forms part of a common, or formerly consisted of or formed part of a common, and is managed by a local authority in accordance with a local Act,
	(b) dispose under paragraph 3 of land, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.
	(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a disposal of land is a disposal by way of a short tenancy if it consists--
	(a) of the grant of a term not exceeding seven years, or
	(b) of the assignment of a term which at the date of the assignment has not more than seven years to run.
	5. A conservation board may not dispose under paragraph 3 of any land consisting of or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them.
	6. Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 (consents to land transactions by local authorities) applies in relation to a conservation board as if a conservation board were a principal council and as if paragraphs 3 to 5 were contained in Part VII of that Act.")
	:TITLE3:Provisions as to charges
	7. In section 152(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (provisions as to charges), after paragraph (ja) there is inserted--
	"(jb) a conservation board established by order under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;";
	and section 151 of that Act (power to amend existing provisions as to charges) shall have effect as if references to an existing provision included references to any such provision as applied by or under Part IIIA of this Act.").
	[Amendment No. 540A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 540, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 540 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 541:
	After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule--
	:TITLE3:("SCHEDULE
	:TITLE3:AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
	:TITLE3:PART I
	:TITLE3:CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
	:TITLE3:National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97)
	1. In section 1 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales), in subsection (2)(a) after "National Parks or" there is inserted "under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	2. In section 112(2) of that Act (provisions not applying to Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches), for "eighty-seven" there is substituted "eighty-nine".
	3. In section 114(1) of that Act (interpretation), for the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty" there is substituted--
	""area of outstanding natural beauty" means an area designated under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;".
	:TITLE3:Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40)
	4. In Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964, in paragraph 1, in paragraph (i) of the definition of "sensitive area" for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)
	5. In section 105A of the 1980 Act (environmental impact assessments), in subsection (6), for paragraph (e) there is substituted--
	"(e) an area of outstanding beauty designated as such under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.".
	:TITLE3:Derelict Land Act 1982 (c. 42)
	6. In section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982 (powers of Secretary of State), in subsection (11), in the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty" for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)
	7. In section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (traffic regulation for special areas in the countryside), at the end of subsection (1)(a)(ii) there is inserted "designated as such under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
	8. In section 37 of the Housing Act 1985 (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	9. In section 157 of that Act (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
	10. In section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (exclusion of certain descriptions of land or development from a simplified planning zone), in subsection (1)(d) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)
	11. In section 130 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (countryside functions of Countryside Council for Wales), in subsection (2)(a) after "National Parks or" there is inserted "under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
	12. In section 156 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (restriction on disposals of land), in subsection (8), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest", for "for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
	13. In Schedule 13 to the Environment Act 1995 (review of old mineral planning permissions), in paragraph 2(4)(c) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)
	14. In section 13 of the Housing Act 1996 (restriction on disposal of houses in National Parks, etc), in subsection (1)(b) for "section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949" there is substituted "section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000".
	:TITLE3:PART II
	:TITLE3:TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
	15. In this Part "commencement" means the commencement of section (Designation of areas).
	16. Any order under section 87 of the 1949 Act (designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty) which is in force immediately before commencement is to be taken to have been made under section (Designation of areas) in accordance with the provisions of Part IIIA of this Act, and may be amended or revoked by an order under that section.
	17. Any reference in any instrument or document (whenever made) to designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty under section 87 of the 1949 or to an order under that section is, in relation to any time after commencement, to be taken to be a reference to designation as such an area under section (Designation of areas) of this Act, or to an order under that section.
	18. Anything done before commencement in connection with a proposed order under section 87 of the 1949 Act is, as from commencement, to be taken to have been done in connection with a proposed order under section (Designation of areas) of this Act.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Carnarvon: moved Amendment No. 542:
	Before Clause 72, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Planning authority in National Parks
	:TITLE3:PLANNING AUTHORITY IN NATIONAL PARKS
	.--(1) In section 4A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at the beginning insert "If the order establishing the National Park authority so provides and".
	(2) In section 65(3) of the Environment Act 1995, for "The functions of a National Park authority" substitute "In the case of a National Park authority which is designated as the sole local planning authority for its area, its functions".
	(3) In section 67(2) of that Act, after "by order" insert "designate a National Park authority as the sole planning authority for its area.
	(2A) An order under subsection (2) may".").

The Earl of Carnarvon: Before moving the amendment I must declare an interest as a former member of the Court of Verderers of the New Forest and the Court of Swainmote and as a member of Hampshire County Council. If Amendment No. 542 is agreed, an alteration to the Long Title of the Bill will be necessary, as proposed in my Amendment No. 567.
	The Secretary of State can make an order under Section 67(2) of the 1995 Environment Act that land-use planning should remain with existing strategic planning authorities. Where he does not, he encourages the national parks authority to make voluntary arrangements to work with neighbouring planning authorities to prepare a joint structure plan for their combined area.
	There is no provision in the Environment Act for the Secretary of State to make an order for development control functions--which I stress--to remain with existing local planning authorities in areas where there is a national park. The local authorities in the New Forest and South Down areas have been examining the implications of possible national park designation, including the implications for existing planning functions. The authorities there are proud of their activities in protecting the New Forest and the South Downs from inappropriate development. They recognise that both areas need special attention if their important characteristics are to be conserved.
	Amendment No. 542 would enable the Secretary of State to make an order that development control functions should remain with the existing local planning authorities if considered appropriate in the circumstances of the area. The effect would be to introduce some discretion into existing legislation; discretion that could be exercised only by the Secretary of State. It would provide him with the means to have different arrangements for delivery of the planning functions in certain national parks from the standard solution at present provided by law. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne: I rise to support this amendment. Here is another opportunity to ensure that local populations are able to influence their area planning decisions. We have perhaps been over zealous in protecting conservation boards from having planning powers foisted on them, which the Minister assured us time and again this evening no one intends to give them. But that is not the case with national parks. After all, they normally have statutory powers.
	In some cases, national parks will straddle a wide range of local authorities. I refer, for example, to what would happen if the South Downs became a national park--I declare an interest as I would be either in it or near the edge of that area if it was designated a national park. The South Downs straddle any number of planning authorities stretching from Eastbourne to Winchester. I find it inconceivable that a national park undertaking development control functions for local communities would stretch from Eastbourne to Winchester. Nothing could be more calculated to cause resentment among local communities than the imposition of a national park having such far-reaching implications on decisions which are perhaps better left at a local level.
	I recognise that the noble Earl is suggesting that the power should be discretionary and the Minister fairly, and frequently, this evening reminded us that the Secretary of State can be assumed to be a reasonable person. Here is an opportunity for him to be highly reasonable. Where the local authorities can better fulfil the planning and development control functions than a national park authority, clearly the Secretary of State should have powers to determine and ensure that local authorities have such development control functions.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I, too, rise to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon.
	This is a rather strange lacuna in the Secretary of State's powers in that national parks have the ability to delegate their development control functions to local authorities involved in their area if they wish to do so; but the Secretary of State does not possess that power. In fact, with the possible exception of the Broads authority, which is of the family of national parks, although sui generis, no national park has yet delegated its development control functions.
	As the noble Earl said, we are looking at the situation in the New Forest and the South Downs. We are now offering the Secretary of State an additional power to enable him to delegate the development and control functions to local authorities if he wishes so to do. That is a most sensible suggestion and I should be surprised if the Minister did not accept it. Given the enormous range which, for example, the South Downs national park would cover--from Winchester to Eastbourne, 105 miles and 16 or 17 local authorities--it is right that at least the possibility of the Secretary of State delegating the development and control functions should be considered. That is part of what the noble Earl is proposing and I hope the amendment will be accepted by the Government Front Bench.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. The amendment would introduce a degree of flexibility, particularly where there is a possibility of new national parks being formed. It is a happy occasion when I am delighted to give the Secretary of State a greater degree of discretion than he is at present able to exercise.

Lord Whitty: I suppose that I ought to grab those last words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is not often he offers discretion to the Secretary of State. I understand the intention behind the amendment and that it would allow national park authorities to be set up without there being a local planning authority. I also understand the circumstances in which that might arise in relation to the possible designation of national parks in the New Forest and the South Downs.
	It would be a big change from what happens in the existing national parks and inevitably there would be some concern there that this was a precedent for unravelling the situation which applies to them. The Government have stated that, in the process of consideration of the South Downs and the New Forest, and any other potential new national park, the planning arrangements need to be assessed and any modifications to the usual national park funding arrangements which might be justified because of particular local circumstances need to be considered.
	The Countryside Agency is examining that and discussing it with the local authorities concerned. There will therefore be extensive consultation and local people and groups will be able to contribute their views. We expect the agency to bring recommendations to the Secretary of State when it produces draft national park designation orders. That is likely to be in the latter part of 2001 for the New Forest and a few months later for the South Downs. Following that, it is likely that there will be public inquiries, so the earliest possible date for a new park to come into being is during 2003.
	The issue of the planning authority is important and the views of the local authorities concerned will need to be taken carefully into account. That may take some time. The Government intend to wait and see what is required in those two specific situations rather than legislating generally in the Bill now.
	Part III of the Environment Act 1985, which the amendment sets out to alter, is based on the presumption of a national park authority being the local planning authority, as the noble Earl indicated. If we want to change that, we would need to amend Part III of that Act and I do not know that the amendment would have the effect of doing that.
	Our major concern is to complete the review of the arrangements that would be needed if we went ahead with the designation of the two areas currently under consideration. We could then see precisely what would be required; either to do what his amendment would allow--that is, to keep the planning powers with the local authority--or alternatively to have a joint arrangement; the more traditional arrangement now existing in the national parks.
	We would need to discuss that fully when decisions are about to take place with the existing national parks as well as with local authorities and the embryo organisations. We do not therefore have a closed mind, therefore, but believe that we would probably be raising too many expectations and apprehensions if we were now to legislate in such a general way when two or three years of the process have yet to be completed in relation to the two areas under consideration. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment and recognises that we understand the concerns which lie behind it.

The Earl of Carnarvon: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I have also spoken to him on the subject. It is important to remember that in the case of the New Forest the whole of the potential national park is within one district. That is one of the biggest districts in England, with 175,000 people, which is not a unitary authority. It is incredible to have an elected district council with planning powers that deal with only three areas of its district while the majority of the land is within the perambulation of the new national park. I listened carefully to the Minister who gave me every hope that in future this matter will be carefully considered. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 72 [Power of countryside bodies to enter into management agreements]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 543:
	Page 46, line 13, at end insert--
	("(f) as respects land in any area of outstanding natural beauty designated under section (Designation of areas) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for which a conservation board has been established under section (Establishment of conservation boards) of that Act, that board.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 543ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 543ZB:
	After Clause 72, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Town or village greens
	:TITLE3:DEFINITION OF TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN
	.--(1) In section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, for the definition of "town or village green" there is substituted--
	""town or village green" means--
	(a) land which has been allotted by or under any Act for the exercise or recreation of the inhabitants of any locality;
	(b) land on which the inhabitants of any locality have a customary right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes; or
	(c) land on which the inhabitants of any locality or residential area have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right for any period of not less than twenty years ending after 31st July 1990, whether or not other persons have used the land for like purposes."
	(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall allow the register of town or village greens to be amended by virtue of section 13(b) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 to include any land which on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent was lawfully covered by a building or its curtilage.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 543ZB takes the Committee back to the first day of its deliberations and the right of the public to recreation on access land. The amendment is not concerned with wide open spaces but small local areas of land. The amendment seeks to protect those areas which are being destroyed by a loophole in the Commons Registration Act 1965. When this matter was raised in the other place the Government found one or two reasons for rejecting the amendment. The fact is that the Government are keen on the creation of new areas of open space and have allocated some £12.8 million from the New Opportunities Fund to create about 200 new areas of open space in urban and rural communities. Therefore, it is strange to leave a loophole which may destroy about 50 village greens.
	The loophole works as follows. For an open space to qualify as a green most people who use it must live nearby. Therefore, if too many people from outside the locality use a village green--they may come for the day or for picnics--they dilute the right of local people to register it. Therefore, an attempt to register that green will fail. Villagers and locals who want to register that land as a green, a status which protects it from development, must present a map which shows the land in question and the area within which people who use the green live. The map must show that there is a recognisable community living close to the land. However, some greens are now in semi-urban areas. So that can be extremely difficult to achieve.
	We do not believe that when the Commons Registration Act was drafted it was intended to contain a loophole which would allow greens to be destroyed. The courts have also ruled that the 20 years referred to in the existing definition must be the period immediately before the application to register. Therefore, if use of the land by local people had suddenly been suspended without warning, for example, because a developer had erected a fence and patrolled the land with security guards, there could be no registration. There would be no time in which to gather the necessary evidence of recreational use and submit a convincing application.
	The amendment seeks to close the loophole and, for the first time, replace the faulty definition with something that enables greens to be protected for all future generations within the spirit of the original legislation and the Government's intention in this Bill. The subsequent amendment deals with the Long Title, should Amendment No. 543ZB be accepted. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol: I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have become aware recently of how much more important than ever these greens have become, particularly in urban or semi-urban areas. They are constantly being lost. I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but I have a list of five which have been lost within the past year. At that rate, obviously the destruction--that is the word for it--of these greens becomes very important indeed for local people. I hope the Government will look kindly on this amendment.

Lord Whitty: I shall look relatively kindly on it. That is the best the Committee will get out of me at this time of night. We share the view that there is a need to tackle the difficulties in registering land and retaining common land in town or village greens. We share the wish behind the amendment of the noble Baroness to clarify the definition in the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Government have clearly signalled their intention to address these issues. We have tried to reflect on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, in so far as it affects the significance of use by outsiders and the circumscribing of a satisfactory community to justify a claim that the land has been a town or village green. There may be some difficulty as to precisely how we do that.
	Moreover, there are some difficulties about the reference to the period of 20 years' use up to 1990. That clearly recedes as time goes on, and it may be difficult to reverse entirely the processes. So there are some complexities about the amendment. I am happy to agree to consider tabling our own amendment on Report. I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that, at least for now.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I look forward to seeing the amendment that he intends to put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 543ZC:
	After Clause 72, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS
	(" . In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in section 2(1) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 543ZC is a fairly small amendment which seeks to bring the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads authority into line with the other ten national parks. At the moment, the authority is somewhat different. This amendment was tabled in the Commons. The Government were relatively sympathetic to it. It seems anomalous that the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads authority has different treatment. It clearly wishes not to have different treatment. Unless there is a good reason to continue the difference, it would seem reasonable to make sure that it is treated in the same way as the rest of its family of national parks. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Last Wednesday I undertook, in response to Amendment No. 453 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to consider bringing forward on Report a government amendment which would require relevant authorities, when doing anything in, or so as to affect land in, an AONB to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. That would parallel the similar duty which is applied by the 1995 Environment Act--when doing anything in, or so as to affect land in, a national park, relevant authorities must have regard to the purposes for which the national parks are designated.
	It would not be right to exclude the Broads, as the other members of the family of designated landscapes, from the application of a similar duty on relevant authorities to have regard to its purposes. I therefore can give the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the same undertaking that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, last week, and undertake to consider bringing forward a government amendment on Report having the effect she seeks. I therefore ask her to withdraw this amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her helpful reply and look forward to seeing the amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 73 [Wales]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 543A to 543C:
	Page 46, line 20, at end insert--
	("(1A) In that Schedule, at the end of the list of Public General Acts there is inserted--
	"Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. ) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest).".").
	Page 46, line 21, leave out ("does") and insert (", and the amendment made by subsection (1A), do").
	Page 46, line 22, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) or the provision inserted by subsection (1A)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 74 [Isles of Scilly]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 544 and 545:
	Page 46, line 28, leave out (", after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly,").
	Page 46, line 32, at end insert--
	("(2A) Part IIIA applies in relation to the Isles of Scilly subject to such modifications as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
	(2B) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (2A), the Secretary of State shall consult the Council of the Isles of Scilly.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Expenses]:
	[Amendment No. 545A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 546:
	Page 46, line 38, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 546A to 546D not moved.]
	Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 76 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 [Repeals]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 547 to 552:
	Page 112, column 3, leave out line 9.
	Page 112, line 28, column 3, at end insert--
	
		
			   ("In Schedule 15, paragraph 9.") 
		
	
	Page 113, line 3, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1958 c. 51. The Public Records Act 1958. In Schedule 1, in Part II of the Table inparagraph 3, the entry relating to the Nature Conservancy Council for England. 
			 1964 c. 40. The Harbours Act 1964. In Schedule 3, in the definition of "sensitive area", paragraph (b). 
			 1965 c. 74. The Superannuation Act 1965. In section 39(1), in paragraph 7, the words "The Nature Conservancy Council for England.". 
			 1967 c. 13. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. In Schedule 2, the entry "Nature Conservancy Council for England.".") 
		
	
	Page 113, line 5, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1975 c. 24. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. In Schedule 1, in Part III, the entry "Any member of the Nature Conservancy Council for England or the Countryside Council for Wales in receipt of remuneration.".") 
		
	
	Page 113, line 7, column 3, at end insert--
	
		
			   ("In section 32(1), the words "or land to which section 29(3) applies".") 
		
	
	Page 113, line 22, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1996 c. 47. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. In Schedule 3, paragraph 20 and the heading preceding it.") 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 552A:
	Page 114, line 5, column 3, at end insert--
	
		
			   ("In section 39(1) the words "which is both in the countryside and".")

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment seeks to make equal the treatment between urban and rural areas where there are amenity spaces. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 currently prevents local and national park authorities from making management agreements that would be beneficial in urban areas. These are voluntary agreements made between landowners to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of amenity land and promote its enjoyment by the public, but only in the countryside. We have referred several times during the passage of the Bill to the importance to urban areas of their open spaces. It seems strange that the Wildlife and Countryside Act should continue to contain a provision whereby management agreements can happen only in rural areas. The amendment would remove that unnecessary bar and allow the power to be used wherever it made sense to do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has outlined the provisions of the amendment. The Bill already provides in Clause 72 that these powers to enter into such agreements should also be made available to the countryside bodies. Amendment No. 552A would enable local planning authorities and the countryside bodies to enter into Section 39 management agreements in respect of any land and not just in respect of land in the countryside. For example, it would allow the Countryside Agency effectively to provide for the long-term protection of millennium greens wherever they are located.
	I believe that there may therefore be merit in considering this amendment, although we need to be confident that it is appropriate for Section 39 powers to be used to protect land in built-up areas. We also need to consider whether such wider powers should be made available both to the countryside body and to the local planning authorities.
	We should like to consider this amendment further, without commitment. I hope that, in the light of this, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Because I am an optimist, I shall take that to be an encouraging response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 553:
	Page 114, line 7, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("PART V
	:TITLE3:AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
	
		
			 Chapter Short title Extent of repeal 
			 1949 c. 97. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Sections 87 and 88. 
			 1990 c. 43. The Environmental Protection Act 1990. In Schedule 8, paragraph 1(12). 
			 1995 c. 25. The Environment Act 1995. In Schedule 10, paragraph 2(7).") 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Commencement]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 554:
	Page 47, line 19, after (" 41,") insert--
	("section 48,
	sections 54 and 55,
	sections 60 to 63 and Schedule 7,").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 555 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 556 and 557:
	Page 47, line 20, after ("Schedules") insert ("(Amendments consequential on change of name of Nature Conservancy Council for England),").
	Page 47, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 558 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 559:
	Page 47, line 27, at end insert (", provided that the remaining provisions of Part I of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) has brought into force regulations making effective provision for notification to all members of the public proposing to enter onto access land of what exclusions or restrictions of access to that land are in force at the time").

Baroness Byford: This amendment takes us back to where we began. Clearly it is necessary to ensure that before the right of access comes into force, all occupiers affected by that right should have been contacted as regards when closures or restrictions are required on their land. Where closures or restrictions are required from day one, it is also necessary to ensure that information is made readily available to the users of the countryside--in this the Minister will see that we have in fact come full circle. The noble Lord will recall that at the beginning of our deliberations, I moved a purpose clause. The Minister said that he could not accept that clause, but that he understood the point of the argument.
	The key to the right of access provisions working successfully lies in effective management provisions. They must be in place from day one. Indeed, that applies also to mapping. I do not believe that this issue has yet been directly addressed. The Government must ensure that all the relevant provisions will be in place prior to the right becoming a reality on the ground. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: We take seriously the concerns that have been expressed as regards confusion about rights of access and the need to ensure that it is properly managed and publicised. I appreciate that, were the new rights to come into force before the provisions managing such access come into effect, significant difficulties could arise both for landowners and for users. However, I do not believe that such a situation should arise.
	Clause 77 already provides that the new right of access cannot come into force unless the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales makes an order. I can assure the noble Baroness that, before such an order is made, effective public information will have been made available as regards any exclusions and restrictions which are to apply. We have referred previously to the steps that will be taken by the Countryside Agency to ensure that information as regards restrictions is made widely available to the public. In addition, amendments have been made in another place enabling directions under Chapter II to be made in advance of land becoming access land; that is, closures and restrictions can apply to land--which will include fast-track land if we choose to pursue that aim--from the moment that the right comes into effect.
	We fully accept the point that lies behind this amendment; namely, that the regulations will need to be in place in advance of the right of access. I hope that this response indicates that we fully intend to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, and I hope that she will not wish to pursue it in this form.

Baroness Byford: I accept the Minister's response and I am grateful to him. The hour is late. If it is possible, I hope that we shall revisit this matter on Report, when the Minister will have had an opportunity to think further about what, on this side of the Committee, is considered to be an extremely important issue. It would be dreadful if, after all our deliberations, the provisions were to fail on the ground. We are anxious to ensure that that does not happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 560 and 561:
	Page 47, line 28, leave out ("(3) or").
	Page 47, line 30, leave out ("(3) or").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Interpretation, short title and extent]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 562 to 565:
	Page 47, line 37, at end insert--
	("( ) Any reference in this Act, or in any enactment amended by this Act, to the commencement of any provision of this Act is, in relation to any area, a reference to the commencement of that provision in relation to that area.").
	Page 47, line 40, leave out ("Except as provided in Schedule 9,") and insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this section,").
	Page 47, line 41, at end insert--
	("(4) The following provisions extend also to Scotland--
	sections 63 and 67;
	in Schedule 7, paragraphs 3 and 5 to 7;
	in Schedule 9, paragraph 2.
	(5) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 extends to Scotland only.").
	Page 47, line 41, at end insert--
	("(6) The provisions of Schedule (Amendments consequential on change of name of Nature Conservancy Council for England) and of so much of Part III of Schedule 11 as relates to the enactments referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule (Amendments consequential on change of name of Nature Conservancy Council for England) have the same extent as the enactments which they amend or repeal.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
	In the Title:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 566:
	Line 7, after ("wildlife") insert ("to make further provision with respect to areas of outstanding natural beauty;").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 567 and 568 not moved.]
	Title, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at fourteen minutes before three o'clock.